From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Dec 01 14:14:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 1 Dec 2002 22:14:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 54999 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2002 22:14:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2002 22:14:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2002 22:14:09 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IcLo-00087Y-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:14:08 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IcLh-000873-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:14:01 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:13:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IcLZ-00086o-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:13:53 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-55-157.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.55.157]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E98A3CF43 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:13:21 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Specific example of Sapir-Whorf in English OR How Lojban made me think more clearly Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:15:28 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20021201171313.GA25407@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 2822 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jordan: > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 03:04:48PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > > Actually, I think that what we're trying to express here is deontic > > modality, so you could say "nomu'eiku lo nanmu cu gletu lo nanmu", > > understanding no to be quantifying over worlds where the rule is > > followed. If we had a way to explicitly note that mu'ei is deontic, > > we might also be able to note which rule or rule system is used [...] > mu'ei could do it, but I hope that if mu'ei becomes official it > either (a) gets moved to MOI or something so it can allow specifying > the type of modality, or (b) it gets pinned down to epistemological > modality in all circumstances > > The problem with (a) is that we lose the ability to do forethought > with it, and to use it in sumti tcita. Instead it would always > have to be at the main brivla (or just in front of it). So I'd > probably prefer (b), perhaps with the use of other mu'ei-like cmavo > for different concepts of necessity (perhaps ma'ei for moral > necessity?) I would tend to use {bilga} for deontic modality. For the reasons you cite, mu'ei is better in ROI, but I guess there is a case for a counterpart in MOI which would allow for different sorts of modality to be expressed, either by a sumti or by a tanru formation. If there is resistance to adding extra cmavo, I guess one could use a lujvo, so that PA+MOI > lujvo li PA. --And.