fundamentalism: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
m (fixed typo: herecy -> heresy)
 
(9 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{se inspekte/en}}''Fundamentalism'' is a value held, orthogonally to [[hardliners|hardlinerism]], which states that the Lojban [[baseline|baseline]] (where it is unambiguous and has not been overwhelmingly trumped by usage) is inviolable, and attempts to revise it through proposal (or even, in extreme cases, through usage) are unwelcome.


;'''[[jbocre: da'au|da'au]]''' [[jbocre: NA|NA]] bridi tautology: bridi tautology marker; transforms an entire bridi into a tautology
The label ''fundamentalism'', while jocular and alluding to schools of literalist thought, is actually intended as an allusion to the ''Fundamento de Esperanto'', the [[Esperanto]] counterpart of the [[baseline|baseline]], which has served as a similar rallying point in that language's history.


----
The antonym is ''tinkering'' or ''heresy''.


This is not needed, as tautologies can already be obtained with ''kau'',
However, people who dislike the baseline may still choose to adhere to it, and shouldn't be conflated with those who think the language must evolve unfettered by any baseline (which is actually pretty much [[Lojban Central|Lojban Central]]'s official position).


the indirect question marker.
===Counterexamples===
* '''ka''' is an example of a word overwhelmingly trumped by usage.


''da'au'' is equivalent to ''xukau'', which stands for the answer
===Discussion===
 
* [[.djorden.|.djorden.]]
to ''xu'', which answer must by definition be whatever makes the
** Right after a statement close to that, however, [[And Rosta|And Rosta]] says "... I am in favour of anything that subverts the baseline ...".  Can we use an antonymn along the lines of "saboteur" zo'o?  [[Jordan DeLong|Jordan DeLong]] believe [[Lojban Central|Lojban Central]]'s position is a bit closer to one of the baseline ruling until there are enough speakers (at level of fluency greater than any current speakers have) to allow a more natural (very slow) language evolution.
 
* [[Jay Kominek|Jay:]]
sentence true.
** Thats a reasonable, though heavily abbreviated of my actual position. I am, however, willing to entertain changes to the semantics which are pushed through usage. (Of course, to convince me of a meaningful amount of usage, you'd have to write at least a novella with your usage... Didn't say it'd be easy. :)
 
* [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion:]]
That might work, but then how do you get the paradox operator (though admittedly it's much less useful.)
** Oh, I'd say 'semantic change unwelcome' is an extreme flavour of fundamentalism. As in, heavy duty [[hardliners|hardliner]] fundamentalism -- more hardliner than I'm prepared to go, too. But on some semantic issues, I can see some (possibly including me) saying "no, you can't start using that meaning, it's against the baseline." More of an issue for cmavo than gismu, of course.
 
* As a result of the former paragraph, if someone resists a usage rather than a proposal that potentially violates the baseline, particularly where the baseline is at its quishiest (gismu [[place structure|place structures]]), are they being a fundamentalist - or insane?
----
** [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]
 
*** probably the latter...
This can be useful in some "maybe, maybe not" contexts. For example:
 
;: John may or may not love Betty.
 
;: la djan. da'au prami la betis.
 
It also might be useful to add an experimental cmavo with the same meaning to [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]], so that this can be used in logical constructions.
 
If anyone is interested in a unary operator which always returns false, one can use "na da'au".
 
----
 
We would need further justification for {da'au}, because that one
 
example could be said as:
 
;: da jei la djan prami la betis
 
;: = Something is the truth value of that J loves B
 
--And.
 
That changes the structure of the sentence. We can also get a tautology with '' ganai la djan prami la betis gi la djan prami la betis'', but it changes the structure and so is not acceptable. ''xukau'' might be good though.
 
----
 
Also, we can borrow from [[jbocre: three-value logic|three-value logic]] and use ''sairu'e''. Thus:
 
;: .i la djan cu sairu'e prami la betis
 
;: It is possible that it is likely that John loves Betty.

Latest revision as of 21:39, 5 October 2016

Fundamentalism is a value held, orthogonally to hardlinerism, which states that the Lojban baseline (where it is unambiguous and has not been overwhelmingly trumped by usage) is inviolable, and attempts to revise it through proposal (or even, in extreme cases, through usage) are unwelcome.

The label fundamentalism, while jocular and alluding to schools of literalist thought, is actually intended as an allusion to the Fundamento de Esperanto, the Esperanto counterpart of the baseline, which has served as a similar rallying point in that language's history.

The antonym is tinkering or heresy.

However, people who dislike the baseline may still choose to adhere to it, and shouldn't be conflated with those who think the language must evolve unfettered by any baseline (which is actually pretty much Lojban Central's official position).

Counterexamples

  • ka is an example of a word overwhelmingly trumped by usage.

Discussion

  • .djorden.
    • Right after a statement close to that, however, And Rosta says "... I am in favour of anything that subverts the baseline ...". Can we use an antonymn along the lines of "saboteur" zo'o? Jordan DeLong believe Lojban Central's position is a bit closer to one of the baseline ruling until there are enough speakers (at level of fluency greater than any current speakers have) to allow a more natural (very slow) language evolution.
  • Jay:
    • Thats a reasonable, though heavily abbreviated of my actual position. I am, however, willing to entertain changes to the semantics which are pushed through usage. (Of course, to convince me of a meaningful amount of usage, you'd have to write at least a novella with your usage... Didn't say it'd be easy. :)
  • nitcion:
    • Oh, I'd say 'semantic change unwelcome' is an extreme flavour of fundamentalism. As in, heavy duty hardliner fundamentalism -- more hardliner than I'm prepared to go, too. But on some semantic issues, I can see some (possibly including me) saying "no, you can't start using that meaning, it's against the baseline." More of an issue for cmavo than gismu, of course.
  • As a result of the former paragraph, if someone resists a usage rather than a proposal that potentially violates the baseline, particularly where the baseline is at its quishiest (gismu place structures), are they being a fundamentalist - or insane?
Retrieved from "https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=fundamentalism&oldid=121250"