Wiki page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumt...
> On 5/17/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > (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).
>
> Huh? The programmatic meanings have for the
> most part
> been in place for more than ten years, they are
> not being
> decided now.
I was under the impression that BPFK was there to
clarify what were generally a pretty vague set of
specifications (which they certainly are,
probably as a result of being programmatic). If
you are leaving the defintions which have been
around for a decade in place, I do not see what
the point of all this is — except to make up a
passle of implausible (and immediately disputed)
exemplary usages — not a particularly useful
exercise.
> > 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.
>
> But that is not what the BPFK is about. We are
> defining prescriptively, not recording the
> mostly
> erroneous use of Lojban by non-fluent speakers
> which will for the most part readily admit that
> their
> usage is erroneous when the mistake is pointed
> out.
So you are in fact just getting around to the
real meanings of expressions. I will ignore the
oddity of "erroneous usage" here, since I
understand the point: "not what the best users
(you and robin and maybe nick) would use it to
mean." I covered that case — in the next
paragraph, I think. If they don't admit there
"mistake" and argue they are right (other than
"that's what the keyword said"(, then you have
more of a problem. Apparently that does not
often happen. So this is for the moment moot.
> > 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.
>
> dictionary.com has a note on that:
> "... Oddly enough, "not interested" is the
> oldest sense
> of the word, going back to the 17th century.
> This sense
> became outmoded in the 18th century but
> underwent a
> revival in the first quarter of the early 20th.
> Despite its
> resuscitation, this usage is widely considered
> an error."
I'm not sure what the moral of this is. I know
that it used to mean what it is coming to mean
again; that does not prevent this from being an
"error" to my prescriptivist side (that is, it
ain't what I learned). I also recognize that
(because, for some reason, "uninterested" is
thought to be too ugly to use).
> > 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 wouldn't have a problem with defining {du'o}
> as {fi'o jinvi}.
> I do have some problem with defining it as
> {fi'o djuno} and
> keywording it as "according to".
That is.f course, against the implicit (actually
explicit apparently, given Lojbab's comments)
rule. But I don't expect either to change the
meaning to "known by" nor the form to {ji'i}.
> {ri'a nai} is a separate issue, using {nai} to
> mark duals,
> which is not its usual function. I just prefer
> regularity there.
Well, I don't think this is using {nai} to mark a
dual, it is just using the simplest combination
of {ri'a} and {nai}to make the most common such
expression — aided by the fact that the regular
forms either make no sense ("opposite of cause")
or are generally useless ("caused by not").
> > > 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.
>
> This is what the ma'oste has:
>
> pa'aku BAI* each respectively
>
> sumti: explicitly marks respective use as in
> "THEY read THEIR (respective) books".
Well, aside from calling this usage BAI, what is
the problem — but then I haven't seen an
example: something like {ko'e cilre pa'aku lo
cukta}? Yuck indeed.
> > > > 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.
>
> What kind of creativity? How can an example
> preclude
> semantic extension? I hope the examples
> preclude
> the {pa'aku} type of creativity, I don't see
> how they can
> preclude purely semantic extension.
I am not sure what you mean by extensions, but
the fact that you allow them suggests that the
definitions are not to be taken too seriously.
In that case, it would be a kindness to say so,
rather than giving the impression that these a4re
the final words. So it turns out we are pretty
close after all, though I sppose we would draw
lines of acceptability in different places: I
like {ri'a nai} for "in spite of", you don't; you
have no problem with {du'o} in spite of its not
being from {djuno}, I have other problems with
its current use (not a BAI, I would say --
probably somewhat milder than your objections to
{pa'aku}, which certainly does not look like any
BAI (even BAI*) I've ever heard of in either
distribution or function — and doesn't seem to
come from {panra} or any associated notion. Of
course {pa'a} itself is an odd BAI.)