From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Aug 16 10:40:52 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ILjKy-0001lH-M8 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:40:50 -0700 Received: from mail.bcpl.net ([204.255.212.10]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ILjKk-0001ko-Ez for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:40:46 -0700 Received: from webmail.bcpl.net (webmail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.24]) by mail.bcpl.net (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l7GHeJ6W000127 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:40:19 -0400 (EDT) X-WebMail-UserID: turnip Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:40:19 -0400 From: turnip To: lojban-beginners X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002700 Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Standards and states Message-ID: <46C5298E@webmail.bcpl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-Spam-Score: 1.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 10 X-Spam-Bar: + X-archive-position: 5375 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: turnip@bcpl.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners >===== Original Message From "Jorge Llambías" ===== >On 8/14/07, ANDREW PIEKARSKI wrote: >> {.i pycy cusku lu .ieru'e .oiru'e ku'i by puza klama ti gi'e cusku lu lo melbi ba'e cmalu u'i bo guzmrkukurbita bo purdi cu se ponse do doi paf li'u li'u >> >> .i lu do'i jetnu jufra .i sa'e do'i jetnu lo za'i karbi fi le so'i guzme purdi pe by li'u se cusku ko'e} >> >> The last sentence was originally: 'Especially compared to his his fields of pumpkins. >> >> The X2 in {jetnu} should be a standard/epistemology/metaphysics. Can the {lo za'i} abstraction be used here as the standard of comparison? > >I'm not very clear on what is meant to go in the x2 of jetnu, but perhaps >{.i sa'e cmalu fi le so'i guzme purdi pe by} would have done. (That also >solves the problem that {do'i} is being used to refer to an utterance >inside a quotation, which is not its normal use.) I like your solution, and will use it, but in defense of "doi", that's pretty much precisely what doi is used for.... to quote from the LRG, Cahpter 7: > The remaining two cmavo, ``dei'' and ``do'i'', refer respectively to the very > utterance that the speaker is uttering, and to some vague or unspecified > utterance uttered by someone at some time: ... > 4.5) do'i jetnu jufra > Some-utterance is-a-true sentence. > That's true (where ``that'' is not necessarily what > was just said Mama Bear was referring to the utterance of Ben (B) spoken to Papa. I could have possibly used one of the counting anaphora, but they get confusing when dealing with nested sumtis. I could have used an assignable KOhA, but Papa didn't assign the quote a value. So I chose to use "do'i" and let the hearer, Papa, work it out. > >It's also not very clear to me why a comparison would be a state. I would have >said it was an achievement, eventually a process, perhaps it could even be an >activity, but a state is the last event-type I would classify it as. > Okay, if I can remember my rationale from so long ago: "It's okay to hurt X" is a true statement in a state of "you are being attacked by X". Remove that state, the utterance is no longer true (for the sake of argument). Similarly, when a state of comparison exists between Papa's patch and Ben's patches, Ben's statement is true, but not when you are in a state of (for example), dreaming, or just considered on its own, with no implied comparison (although Mama's first statement says that is is objectively true without qualification. --gejyspa