Return-path: X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:28:42 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MzMP7-0005FR-M4; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:26:10 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MzMLq-0005F4-8s for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:22:38 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MzMLO-0005Cc-LN for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:22:32 -0700 Received: by vws11 with SMTP id 11so1589900vws.28 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:21:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=i6ahBuZqfqBKRZJkVVisntWRoGB+VOWx/wCecb1koOM=; b=jIeQxD3Q1CPkGKag3ovCwwbECuK/ieGI0Rd0NM+vS/jZ3JmxLG/fwQ9XOeH1eRZP7P gj1+6yI4IQZHObPaBYYUej9olTWNq+BUvQxzwmtys+Q5O/ABN2Yeq/t4xVbni6TLkfoQ plbBGZqF6hmFbgZ6D2VULOBWU5o+KI3urGFdc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=BD99/shOXplD4Lkifq7H9tb04X59nj9U9V02EHU5OzDPfKcsnAJTolswBh5FK/XXwC hkYOUhUlfQhbEbbN8o2QAbk26Cc0PB2wqJVIdFJ/rskbARU58j1XIRQZmmZhRgzc4rlF O9MN3q01sHHgQUJm4o4lLilh3Ybufxj2lxP/c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.16.85 with SMTP id n21mr6625811vca.13.1255836118062; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:21:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <587457860910170026n7c7f93adh20d7eeb05a4081cb@mail.gmail.com> <20091017080522.GD3040@mercury.ccil.org> <977963.86617.qm@web50412.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20091017213311.GE3040@mercury.ccil.org> <5715b9300910171446x4d5a5acfq2cfc7ec5edbc8099@mail.gmail.com> <843341.83923.qm@web50404.mail.re2.yahoo.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?55m95p2+?= Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:21:38 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2cada4f13c7a2d2c Message-ID: <27513e550910172021j374a5edap21301653ca516b34@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: What would happen if xu and ko were put together? To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485e2ead0b698b204762d2151 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: baisong@gvbchina.org.cn Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 9314 Lines: 214 --001485e2ead0b698b204762d2151 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I see both points: (1) Rephrasing into a natural langauge (read: English) introduces non-inherent grammatical incompatibilities. This sentence is valid. (2) No, in fact, there is an inherent pragmatic usage to utterances and lojban treats these fundamental usages unambiguously by separating them. This sentence is invalid. As an idealist, I'd like to say that the prevailing logic resides in argument (1), because the resulting interpretations seem very liberating, which is supposedly one of lojban's goals. This conclusion seems to inspire the imagination. As a practical non-elite-oldbie (haha, no offense?), I'd take argument (2)'s caution to heart. Indeed, from a learner's perspective, I imagine not only native-Enlgish-speakers would find difficulty understanding how to respond (or *if* to respond) that that statement. And lojban also tries to minimize ambiguity. This conclusion seems like a better bug-fix. So, personally, I accept that wishful thinking is a form of logical fallacy but choose to support argument (1) regardless! .i'i .aicai .a'o .o'inai On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 08:45, Ted Reed wrote: > On Oct 17, 2009, at 17:19, Lindar Greenwood > wrote: > > I really do mean both ".i ko klama zo'e" and ".i do klama ma" at the >>>>>>> same time, >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> I don't think there necessarily has to be a way to express those at the >>>> >>>>> same time, any more than there's a way to express "I'll go with you" >>>>>> and "You stink" at the same time. (Or is there?) >>>>>> >>>>> >> There isn't a -need- for it, but I see the possibility of it being used. >> It seems to me that you're trying to accurately translate it to English, >> then understand it, which can't be done, which is why many are saying that >> it doesn't actually make sense. I see {ma} like a 'fill in the blank' >> indicator, which is a unique property to Lojban. It doesn't make things >> a question, it makes it (to me) and incomplete sentence with a request >> for the information to be completed. {.i do klama ma} to me is more like >> "You're going _____." with a little note that says "Please fill in the >> blank! Thank you!" rather than literally being "Where are you going?". >> >> >> Even if there was a parse order and you had to read it as ".i do >>>>>>> klama ma" first, then with 'ko', or vice-versa, I still mean both >>>>>>> regardless of which one you read first, assuming you have to read it >>>>>>> as one without the other, then the inverse. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> The "priority" issue, as I've tried to explain above, is not about >>>> >>>>> which statement is effectively made first, but about which speech act >>>>>> is dominant. >>>>>> >>>>> >> I'm not saying that either is dominant, and I'm actually fiercely stating >> the opposite. Both are equally dominant in the sentence, and should be >> read at the same time because the order in which they are read is >> irrelevant. It's not "Tell me where you are going." it's "Go. Where?" >> > > Or, alternately, "Where are you going? Go there." > > > > --001485e2ead0b698b204762d2151 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I see both points:

(1) Rephrasing into a natural langauge (read: Eng= lish) introduces non-inherent grammatical incompatibilities. This sentence = is valid.

(2) No, in fact, there is an inherent pragmatic usage to u= tterances and lojban treats these fundamental usages unambiguously by separ= ating them. This sentence is invalid.

As an idealist, I'd like to say that the prevailing logic resides i= n argument (1), because the resulting interpretations seem very liberating,= which is supposedly one of lojban's goals. This conclusion seems to in= spire the imagination.

As a practical non-elite-oldbie (haha, no offense?), I'd take argum= ent (2)'s caution to heart. Indeed, from a learner's perspective, I= imagine not only native-Enlgish-speakers would find difficulty understandi= ng how to respond (or *if* to respond) that that statement. And lojban also= tries to minimize ambiguity. This conclusion seems like a better bug-fix.<= br>
So, personally, I accept that wishful thinking is a form of logical fal= lacy but choose to support argument (1) regardless! .i'i .aicai .a'= o .o'inai

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 08:= 45, Ted Reed <te= d.reed@gmail.com> wrote:
<= div class=3D"h5">On Oct 17, 2009, at 17:19, Lindar Greenwood <lindarthebard@yahoo.com<= /a>> wrote:

I really do mean both ".i ko klama zo'e" and ".i do klam= a ma" at the
same time,

I don't think there necessarily has to be a way to express those at the=
same time, any more than there's a way to express "I'll go wit= h you"
and "You stink" at the same time. =A0(Or is there?)

There isn't a -need- for it, but I see the possibility of it being used= .
It seems to me that you're trying to accurately translate it to English= ,
then understand it, which can't be done, which is why many are saying t= hat
it doesn't actually make sense. I see {ma} like a 'fill in the blan= k'
indicator, which is a unique property to Lojban. It doesn't make things=
a question, it makes it (to me) and incomplete sentence with a request
for the information to be completed. {.i do klama ma} to me is more like "You're going _____." with a little note that says "Plea= se fill in the
blank! Thank you!" rather than literally being "Where are you goi= ng?".


Even if there was a parse order and you had to read it as ".i do
klama ma" first, then with 'ko', or vice-versa, I still mean b= oth
regardless of which one you read first, assuming you have to read it
as one without the other, then the inverse.

The "priority" issue, as I've tried to explain above, is not = about
which statement is effectively made first, but about which speech act
is dominant.

I'm not saying that either is dominant, and I'm actually fiercely s= tating
the opposite. Both are equally dominant in the sentence, and should be
read at the same time because the order in which they are read is
irrelevant. It's not "Tell me where you are going." it's = "Go. Where?"

Or, alternately, "Where are you going? Go there."




--001485e2ead0b698b204762d2151--