WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumt...

posts: 2388


> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > It's easier to add than to remove, and even
> > > adding anything
> > > at this point is extremely difficult.
> >
> > You don't have a delete key?
>
> You singular? No, I don't unfortunately (or
> fortunately,
> depending on your point of view.) You plural,
> maybe
> there is one but very hard to press.

I meant this literally: if you start with a list
of purported tags on your screen, you can get rid
of a lot just by highlighting and hitting delete.
No one would notice (except fussbudgets who
compare lists) since no one has used the deleted
items or shown any inclination to. But leaving
them with a statement about their status is
probably better.

> > But I have
> > suggested a work-around (which corresponds
> with
> > what I suggested earlier, namely that these
> > potential words be listed and a general
> statement
> > made about likely areas of meaning in each
> case
> > — or better in a general statement).
>
> They are pretty well defined, even if rather
> useless.

But the definitions given preempt their future
use, where they might have served for some real
need and now are stuck with a formulaic but
useless sense. (People manage to ride over this
kind of problem all the time, but it would be a
courtesy not to stick them with it in the first
place.)

> > > It is obvious to me that there are rules.
> Or
> > > perhaps I'm just delusional? :-)
> > >
> > Every rule that I have seen you propose has
> clear
> > exceptions among the oldest level of forms.
>
> None of the rules are exceptionless, but they
> are quite extensive.

Yes, things tend to turn out in a certain way,
just as lujvo tend to fall into a small number
(say two) of patterns. But that hardly is a
basis for claiming that future items will always
fall into the predominant pattern, as the
definitions given here do. Let actual usage
decide; the remarks should give the sort of hints
that might lead one to find a word that would
work for a notion that one has in mind but ought
not preclude the use of a rare — even so-far
unexemplified — pattern.

> > Even
> > your revised "despite," if you really mean it
> to
> > be regular, runs afoul of other cases from
> the
> > same stratum or earlier. (it requires that
> {nai}
> > scope over {to'e ri'a}, whereas in many cases
> > {nai} has to scope only over the attached
> phrase).
>
> Yes, that's unfortunate, but better than
> nothing.

But so, of course, is the original listed form
{ri'a nai} (indeed, it is better yet) even though
its justification is not just in terms of
patterns of connections between a BAI and some
brivla, but rather in terms of general linguistic
principles applied to such a connection (but note
that even the connection is not actually
necessary for finding uses for these forms,
merely — as CLL says somewhere — suggestive, a
mnemonic, not a definition).