response to jimc on BAI

[Logical Language Group <cbmvax!uunet!GREBYN.COM!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!lojbab>]

jimc writes:
>Yes, there are so many potential BAI cases that are so ridiculous (like
>language or name on a motion word) that it makes the idea very hard to
>handle.  Not to mention the appalling idea of predicates with infinitely
>many places.

>Nonetheless, there are some places which appear to be present on every
>jufra (every bridi?), such as tense (spatial, temporal), speaker and
>listener.  Lojbab has resisted, and rightly so, an attempt to say that
>"certain _cases_ are primary, and these others are extra".  So you have
>to include them all, or exclude them all, and excluding them all does
>not seem like a good idea because it's so obvious that some BAI/PU cases
>belong on every jufra.

There is an alternative between infinite and primary/specific, and that is
'indefinite'.  There are an indefinite number of additional places that
COULD be added to any bridi.  They are not metaphysically necessary to
the basic concept, but they may be necessary to the concept that you
are trying to communciate, in which case you add them.

Certains places like 'by standard ..." or 'to observer ...' are inherent
to a relativistic worldview, but it is possible to not use such a world
view, even though it is probably a nearly universal assumption in our
culture.

'blanu' can either be 'by standard ...', 'to observer ...', 'under
conditions...' or JCB's 'more than ...', a combination of these, or just
possibly none of them.  We can say that some BAI's are more useful than
others, but cannot say that some are needed always (though under
conditions ...) applies in my mind all the time.

The infinite bridi concept is useful only if you wish to assert that all
of the universe is interconnected, in which case all bridi are really
aspects of loi bridi (Mr.  Bridi, the all-encompassing Universal
Relationship - which is what the infinite briodi effectively claims).

>It may be necessary to formalize this process.  Namely, each gismu has
>certain essential places which are present in every instance of the
>relation.  But only some of them are numbered; the rest are served by
>BAI's.  These are listed explicitly in the dictionary.  Unlisted places
>may be added but if so they have an interpretation like a subordinate
>clause restricting the bridi; they are not part of the "real" relation.

This would impose a metaphysical bias favoring some places over others.
I can suggest in a general section that certain BAIs tend to be more
useful in certain circumstances than others - but note that that
phraseology is descrirptive - not presscriptive.  I continue to maintain
antipathy for Lojban Central to prescribe everything in the language.
The people who speak Lojban are going to have to communicate with each
other and figure out what each other means, without me.  (Not to mention
that the more prescriptive information we put in, the less likely that
anyone is going to learn the important stuff, whatever that is.  Unlike
Carter, I do not see Lojbanists as willing to look every word up in a
dictionary every time they want to say something to make sure they are
following the rules.  I don't and I am understood to my satisfaction.

lojbab