WikiDiscuss

pc:
> Let me lay out my quandary.
> For all I know, xorlo may be a highly desirable
> way to transform Lojban. It may solve many known
> or previously unknown problems in earlier Lojban
> and do so without introducing any new problems of
> its own. It may make Lojban as a language for
> use much smoother and moore elegant and
> transparent (and whatever other virtues you want
> here). For all I know.
> But all I know is what I read here (together with
> some recollections of discussions stretching back
> through several years). I have asked for more,
> making explicit requests, asking particular
> questions. But I have not received answers --
> often none at all, occssionally inadequate ones
> that merely raised more questions.
> So what I am left with is what emerges here
> willy-nilly. And that comes down at the moment
> to a small number of points:
> 1) It is in xorlo easier to say "two groups of
> three broda each" and harder to say "two of the
> three broda," though the latter appears to be
> the more common expression and the former had a
> transparent expression before — and of Zipfily
> appropriate size.

"two groups of three broda each" would in xorlo
be "re loi ci broda".

"two of the three broda" would in xorlo be "re lo
ci broda" or "re le ci broda" (depending on how
to read your "the").

So I think your concern here is not warranted.

> 2) In xorlo the marking of opaque contexts is no
> longer obligatory as it was in older Lojban (at
> the risk of misspeaking). Whether this amounts
> to saying that there are no opaque contexts (as
> sometimes appears) or that we can tell which is
> meant from context with such a high level of
> success that the extra fillip is unnecessary is
> unclear. The first is clearly false; the second
> seems to be so, given how frequent the errors
> were when the marking was required.

Up to the time when I tuned out, there was no
satisfactory treatment of opaque contexts. I
think it would be better to discuss xorlo's
treatment of opacity in the context of specific
examples, but I think "lo broda" in contrast
to "su'o broda" handles most opaque:transparent
contrasts (subject to your third concern).

> 3) To make xorlo a coherent system requires Mr.
> Potato-head or some equivalent — to bridge the
> gap between opaque and transparent contexts if
> nothing else. But just what Mr. PH is or how it
> works is not clear in the beginning and has not
> been clarified since. We are just assure that it
> does work the way required. But there are two
> thoudnad years and more of philosophy and logic
> on the side that nothing does all this. To be
> sure, in most places what is said about Mr. PH
> fit known structures: batches, mereological sums,
> species — but there is always a further step
> they cannot follow but that, we are told, Mr.H
> does.

"lo broda" refers to whatever the speaker chooses
(subject to the requirement that it has the
property of brodahood), so it's up to the speaker
whether it can refer to Mr Broda. But it is true
that any speaker who doesn't like the notion of Mr
Broda is going to have to find alternative ways of
expressing opaque sumti. But (a) some speakers
definitely are happy to refer to Mr Broda (-- I
am one of them...), and (b) those other ways of
expressing opaque sumti (e.g. your suggestion of
using a propositional sumti of an appropriately
defined selbri) are still going to be available.

> 4) On the side of elegance, all that has
> apperared so are a) that we don't need to worry
> about opaque contexts any more (which is nice
> because many of us never did get them right) and
> b) that a mass of improper Lojban (perhaps the
> greater part of what we have that has any claim
> to be Lojban) is proper xorlo. b is clearly the
> best argument so far for xorlo but does not seem
> to me to be enough, especially for something that
> calls itself a logical language (even if in a
> very restricted way).
> So, once again, will someone please lead me out
> of this quandary onto the side of xorlo, or, if
> that is impossible because the objections here
> are true, fix xorlo in some minimal way to avoid
> the objections.

Does my response help at all?

--And.