http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Criteria+for+evaluating+experimental+cmavo mentions that just because an idea can be expressed without using cmavo, doesn’t necessarily mean that the cmavo itself is a bad one. Eg, I could probably express the ideas represented all of baseline Lojban’s evidentials without using those specific cmavo, but they’re still a handy thing to have.
I’ve found some use in bei’e; if anyone else does, that’s fine, too; if you don’t have any use for it, that’s still just fine; and in the meantime, it doesn’t seem to be using up any scarce resources to have it listed.
You link to a discussion in which one member of the byfy explicitly disagrees with another member on exactly this issue. That’s hardly legislative.
The argument was not from a scarcity of experimental cmavo space. It wastes everyone’s time to create trivial experimental cmavo. Compare with la’oi, which was adopted (at least in the IRC channel) almost immediately because it filled an actual gap between what people wanted to say and what the language previously allowed.
Finally, it doesn’t make any sense to say that a cmavo is of selma’o MAI, but is “placed like an evidential.” Either something is UI or not.
Okay, so you don’t like this tool, and think that the metaphorical toolbox should only contain flathead screwdrivers, not Phillips-head ones; that’s fine, I’m not trying to force anyone to use this if they don’t want to. But I’m not quite sure what it is you’re suggesting I /do/. Do you want me to stop using this word when I think about Bayesian confidence levels? Do you think I should stop telling people about the use I’ve found in this word? What is the best future that you are hoping I help bring into being?
Finally, it doesn’t make any sense to say that a cmavo is of selma’o MAI, but is “placed like an evidential.”
Either something is UI or not.
Both UI and MAI, including evidentials, fall under the category of “free modifiers”, which are supposed to be able to be placed anywhere in a bridi without “changing the meaning”. However, evidentials do change the meaning of a sentence, by making it a statement of “how it is for the speaker”—and so, presumably, the idea of free modifiers “not changing the meaning” is somewhat loosely applied.
The basic idea of this word is to tag an individual sumti, or a whole sentence, with a particular number; the only way in Lojban I know of to create a free modifier which can have any number is to make it a MAI; so, technically, that’s what I’ve assigned bei’e as. However, practically, the purpose of the number is to describe the user’s belief-level in that sumti, which is very close to how evidentials are used; and so, in a non-technical sense, I describe it as being placed ‘like’ an evidential. So it’s not a UI—it’s just used in pretty much the same way that UIs are.
Okay, so you don’t like this tool, and think that the metaphorical toolbox should only contain flathead screwdrivers, not Phillips-head ones...
I clearly don’t mind experimental cmavo that are well thought out and address a demonstrable need in the language.
I’m not trying to force anyone to use this if they don’t want to.
False: you’re forcing all of your readers to use this when they read the things you write. For this to be worthwhile, that inconvenience should be balanced out by the convenience of using bei’e.
But I’m not quite sure what it is you’re suggesting I /do/.
I want you to think longer before suggesting modifications to the language.
However, practically, the purpose of the number is to describe the user’s belief-level in that sumti, which is very close to how evidentials are used; and so, in a non-technical sense, I describe it as being placed ‘like’ an evidential. So it’s not a UI—it’s just used in pretty much the same way that UIs are.
Saying bei’e is selma’o MAI already exhausts the potential places that it can appear in a sentence. I suspect you originally wanted bei’e to be UI and haven’t fully updated to it being MAI. More evidence that you need to think about this longer.
Saying bei’e is selma’o MAI already exhausts the potential places that it can appear in a sentence.
… Er, are you sure we’re talking about the same MAIs? Pretty much by definition, all free modifiers, including MAIs, can appear anywhere in a sentence—defining bei’e as a MAI doesn’t limit where it can appear at all.
Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by ‘exhausts’?
Experimental cmavo are almost always a giant waste of time, with the possible exception of la’oi.
I don’t see how the above couldn’t be accomplished with cu’o.
EDIT EX: .i lo nu mi klama cu pimucu’o
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Criteria+for+evaluating+experimental+cmavo mentions that just because an idea can be expressed without using cmavo, doesn’t necessarily mean that the cmavo itself is a bad one. Eg, I could probably express the ideas represented all of baseline Lojban’s evidentials without using those specific cmavo, but they’re still a handy thing to have.
I’ve found some use in bei’e; if anyone else does, that’s fine, too; if you don’t have any use for it, that’s still just fine; and in the meantime, it doesn’t seem to be using up any scarce resources to have it listed.
You link to a discussion in which one member of the byfy explicitly disagrees with another member on exactly this issue. That’s hardly legislative.
The argument was not from a scarcity of experimental cmavo space. It wastes everyone’s time to create trivial experimental cmavo. Compare with la’oi, which was adopted (at least in the IRC channel) almost immediately because it filled an actual gap between what people wanted to say and what the language previously allowed.
Finally, it doesn’t make any sense to say that a cmavo is of selma’o MAI, but is “placed like an evidential.” Either something is UI or not.
Okay, so you don’t like this tool, and think that the metaphorical toolbox should only contain flathead screwdrivers, not Phillips-head ones; that’s fine, I’m not trying to force anyone to use this if they don’t want to. But I’m not quite sure what it is you’re suggesting I /do/. Do you want me to stop using this word when I think about Bayesian confidence levels? Do you think I should stop telling people about the use I’ve found in this word? What is the best future that you are hoping I help bring into being?
Both UI and MAI, including evidentials, fall under the category of “free modifiers”, which are supposed to be able to be placed anywhere in a bridi without “changing the meaning”. However, evidentials do change the meaning of a sentence, by making it a statement of “how it is for the speaker”—and so, presumably, the idea of free modifiers “not changing the meaning” is somewhat loosely applied.
The basic idea of this word is to tag an individual sumti, or a whole sentence, with a particular number; the only way in Lojban I know of to create a free modifier which can have any number is to make it a MAI; so, technically, that’s what I’ve assigned bei’e as. However, practically, the purpose of the number is to describe the user’s belief-level in that sumti, which is very close to how evidentials are used; and so, in a non-technical sense, I describe it as being placed ‘like’ an evidential. So it’s not a UI—it’s just used in pretty much the same way that UIs are.
I clearly don’t mind experimental cmavo that are well thought out and address a demonstrable need in the language.
False: you’re forcing all of your readers to use this when they read the things you write. For this to be worthwhile, that inconvenience should be balanced out by the convenience of using bei’e.
I want you to think longer before suggesting modifications to the language.
Saying bei’e is selma’o MAI already exhausts the potential places that it can appear in a sentence. I suspect you originally wanted bei’e to be UI and haven’t fully updated to it being MAI. More evidence that you need to think about this longer.
… Er, are you sure we’re talking about the same MAIs? Pretty much by definition, all free modifiers, including MAIs, can appear anywhere in a sentence—defining bei’e as a MAI doesn’t limit where it can appear at all.
Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by ‘exhausts’?