WikiDiscuss

---

> On 5/17/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > "Give me an example of a non-existent object
> or I
> > won't be convinced" is not a very interesting
> > comment.
>
> It's not a comment, just a request. I have been
> using Lojban
> for ten years and I don't recall any instance
> during this time
> of any BAI acquiring an interesting new
> meaning, so I'd like
> to know what kind of possible extensions you
> have in mind.

It was an inappropriate request because of its
inherent contradiction, so I called it a comment
to keep within the bounds of cooperative
discourse. I suppose that you want me to
speculate on what might be the case, but even
that is not likely to be fruitful, given the lack
of casesin recent history that you point to
(although it is not clear how you can tell that
the forms don't have interesting new meanings if
the basic meanings they are to have are not yet
-- or are only just now — decided; perhaps the
meaning that they have actually been used to have
are significant variations on the programmatic
ones, had those been specified before).

> > I have cited cases from the past where
> > the rules being in force would have prevented
> a
> > useful usage; I extrapolate from that.
>
> What rules do you think are in force? People
> who use {du'o}
> for "according to" are convinced that that's
> what {djuno}
> permits them to do, so they are using it for
> what they take
> {fi'o djuno} to be. Either that, or they just
> looked up the
> keyword in the ma'oste. Another example, {ti'u}
> is glossed
> "at time ..." so people sometimes use it to tag
> any time
> indicaton, as if it was {ca}, {ti'u le crisa}
> for example. But
> {ti'u} is supposed to be {fi'o tcika}, for a
> clock time. The
> English keyword is misleading. Is it desirable
> to let the
> meaning of {ti'u} drift based on its English
> keyword?
> Should we not insist that {ti'u} is {fi'o
> tcika}?

The fact that the uses of {ti'u} can be traced to
the keyword is, of course, damning because
keywords have such a history of misleading
people. But it must be said that in this case
the keyword does not seem to me to point in the
direction folks have gone with it (which for me
would have to be "at the time of"). But then, I
learned {ca} before {ti'u} (which I admit I have
never used)and so did not have to look for an
expression to say "at the time of." On the
other hand, if people do use {ti'u} instead of
{ca}, then in Lojban as she are spoke it means
that; that is what dictionary writing is all
about. The fact that it is redundant in that
meaning — and that the clock time meaning is
harder to do using {ca} and thus that another
form for it is useful — does not change the
fact. However, it does give a reason for our
doing what we can to change usage back to the way
it was envisioned to be. The history of success
in that endeavor is not encouraging to be sure
(Gresham's Law); I have given up on
"disinterested," for example (even the New York
Times uses it for "lacks interest") — though I
don't (I think) use it myself. With Lojban we
have a bit more power, since we can edit what
actually goes into the corpus, if we want, and
thus guarantee that the official exemplars
conform to our ideas. But in the cases where the
usage actually fills a need — and the offical
line does not — then the editor and the
dictionary writer would be wisest to follow
usage. The exceptions, like {du'o} and {ri'a
nai}, actually existed, apparently, before the
(perhaps implicit) rules but surely no one (well,
you in fact have, so I'd better not say this)
would go back to change them now. I suppose that
-- as often happens, I've noticed — {djuno} gets
mixed up with English "know," which can be used
for firm belief ({birti} say or {jinvi} or
{krici} — which pile needs some looking at) as
well as for strict knowledge, and this carries
over to {du'u}, aided by the fact that {du'u}
according to the rules gives an essentially
useless item and none of the other gismu involved
has an associated BAI, leaving a useful (though,
I think, otherwise better dealt with)notion
without a direct expression.

> > Well, we have different tastes at this point;
> I
> > prefer the possibility of creativity to the
> > strict requirement that all be done by rules.
>
>
> I'm all in favour of creativity. It usually
> requires more
> creativity to do things by the rules than to
> come up with
> ad hoc solutions to problems.

This claim strikes me as self-contradictory; that
is, doing things by the rules is the definitional
opposite of being creative. What I suspect you
mean you prefer when we get down to cases is
"playing with the rules and the possible
conflicts among different rules to get something
that is creatively satisfying and yet can be made
to look rule governed." I like that and that is,
in effect, what I am recommending we open the
door to officially: here is a form, here is the
area wherein we would expect the meaning of it
to lie, ow find some useful meaning that fits
there and is not already better covered.

> Using BAIs for
> non-BAI functions,
> (like the sometime proposed function for
> pa'aku) is not, in
> my view, a desirable outcome.

I don't remember this case; could you elaborate.
Many of the existing BAI seem to me to be cases
of this sort, but now so established as to be
unchangable and even to serve as models for other
violations ({du'o} is one, for example).

> Shifting the
> meaning of some
> BAI from {fi'o broda} to some other {fi'o
> brode} is perfectly
> acceptable to me, preferrably if done
> consciously, so for example
> that you use {du'o} knowing you mean {fi'o
> jinvi}, and not really
> meaning {fi'o jinvi} but thinking you mean
> {fi'o djuno}.

Good, though I would prefer that new usages not
recover areas already taken care of, at least for
a while yet.

> > It
> > does not seem to me appropriate for the
> grammar
> > to take sides on this, hence my suggestion
> that
> > the unused forms be declared undetermine but
> als
> > show which way the predictions of their use
> lie.
>
> It's hard to see how that differs from what is
> being done
> now.

Well, you may take the definitions and examples
offered as mere suggestions and hints, but I fear
that most people take them as carved in at least
something more enduring than Jell-o, to the
detriment of creativity in this area.