From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jan 02 07:44:07 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 02 Jan 2008 07:44:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JA5lH-0002cM-Cd for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 07:44:07 -0800 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.230]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JA5lD-0002cD-63 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 07:44:07 -0800 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i27so1637677wxd.25 for ; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 07:44:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=1GBoyiwYFF7CJ6r9gs9RKcsopnYtrQsi3S6H2kyFaMc=; b=fLXPISzcyTAS/+cKZJ6NbxFzqSr4N+Wp7zc/dzgFyvdbsN9T1IOcy6A8R2eAQwi8NB9+TLgLftC6qHifkeNfEbCsKzOcRwTX/DhLa3A4mocmjFh57tArr0M2+AWc+Qtghgg/wJFqYv4t9u3qel7FnZ8lJP81E7CZnEghEyhQZ/0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=B1B8UdBbUm1xv6/abEeCIWB1bYU8BiorOEf2N8dg0dhsX7CDls1HWEMJlAoZTvmo6lC/cG+tvZqcUEL1WbG6hGBfxkE/dnVG8N87N4uSvzReqbfjcTZqfLZVuGCn/OTRqs2aeuFM1vd3hY1dNjSnoYDpq81bOxyC01g/c2Brwkw= Received: by 10.142.127.10 with SMTP id z10mr2541121wfc.216.1199288640743; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 07:44:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.144.6 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 07:44:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <96f789a60801020744h33a9d811nf2d5441dd2083425@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:44:00 -0500 From: "Michael Turniansky" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: di'e gimsnu be zo xanka, was Re: the black hole of keyworditis In-Reply-To: <925d17560801020631y16f9e44erb1e40be7b532625e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_15565_32925065.1199288640710" References: <2f91285f0712300908l379651c5o91cde87e8b81960e@mail.gmail.com> <20071231134734.tgxeg0ra8gsoowko@webmail.ixkey.info> <4779CF45.2040709@lojban.org> <20071231234906.p1i1u6qigww4osso@webmail.ixkey.info> <96f789a60801010503r3132c8d1w127278d2545b1fc4@mail.gmail.com> <20080101091514.wxpdnp7aqskkkw04@webmail.ixkey.info> <96f789a60801011016q4eec42e6p409490f982c694ab@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560801011409p69d64c0cnca55f9810a51c17e@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60801020501y5a7eff83w4f11c5bbbecc9fee@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560801020631y16f9e44erb1e40be7b532625e@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 128 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mturniansky@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_15565_32925065.1199288640710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Jan 2, 2008 9:31 AM, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > > > > Today, Mary is nervous about having cancer, under conditions of seeing > the > > doctor. > > > > Her current mental state? Unknown. > > She is now nervous but maybe not? > > I'm not convinced that's how "under conditions" places are supposed to > work. For me, if we are told {la meris nau ca'a xanka lo nu ka'e kenra my > kei da} then we are definitely being told that her mental state now is > one of nervousness, and that the possibility of her having cancer is what > is making her nervous now, and that information we are given would not > be changed if "da" was made more explicit or less. > > > Can we tell if she has gone to the > > doctor, or will be going to see the doctor tomorrow, or ever? No. But > we > > might be using this sentence to explain why Mary HASN'T gone to a docto= r > in > > 20 years, because she might have cancer. As long as she doesn't go, sh= e > > isn't worried about the possibility (blissful ignorance). > > But then you don't agree after all with my characterization of ko'a > and ko'e in {ko'a nau ca'a xanka ko'e ko'i}. You are saying that as > long as ko'i does not obtain, we don't claim that ko'e is actually > making ko'a nervous at all. It's just the potentiality of her being > nervous that is claimed to be actual and current. > By the way, if we know that the terxanka is true, then the nervousnes= s is actual, not potential: "la meris ba klama lo mikce .i la meris xanka lo za'i selkenra kei lo nu go'i" (Mary is going to the doctor. Mary is nervous about having cancer BECAUSE of this). is functionally equivalent in meaning to "la meris xanka lo za'i selkenra .iki'ubo my ba klama lo mikce" -> (Mary is nervous about having cancer BECAUSE she will be going the doctor.) --gejyspa ------=_Part_15565_32925065.1199288640710 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

On Jan 2, 2008 9:31 AM, Jorge Llamb=EDas= <jjllambias@gmail.com> w= rote:

>
> Today, Mary is nervous about  h= aving cancer, under conditions of seeing the
> doctor.
>
>= ; Her current mental state?  Unknown.

She is now nervous = but maybe not?

I'm not convinced that's how "under conditions" p= laces are supposed to
work. For me, if we are told {la meris nau ca'= a xanka lo nu ka'e kenra my
kei da} then we are definitely being tol= d that her mental state now is
one of nervousness, and that the possibility of her having cancer is wh= at
is making her nervous now, and that information we are given would no= t
be changed if "da" was made more explicit or less.

> Can we tell if she has gone to the
> doctor, or will be goin= g to see the doctor tomorrow, or ever? No.  But we
> might be us= ing this sentence to explain why Mary HASN'T gone to a doctor in
>= ; 20 years, because she might have cancer.  As long as she doesn't= go, she
> isn't worried about the possibility (blissful ignorance).
<= br>
But then you don't agree after all with my characterization of= ko'a
and ko'e in {ko'a nau ca'a xanka ko'e ko'i= }. You are saying that as
long as ko'i does not obtain, we don't claim that ko'e is a= ctually
making ko'a nervous at all. It's just the potentiality o= f her being
nervous that is claimed to be actual and current.

  By the way, if we know that the terxanka=   is  true, then  the  nervousness is actual, not poten= tial:
"la meris ba klama lo mikce .i la meris xanka lo za'i sel= kenra  kei lo nu go'i" (Mary is going to the doctor.  Ma= ry is nervous about having cancer BECAUSE of this).
is functionally equivalent in meaning to "la meris xanka lo za'= ;i selkenra .iki'ubo my ba klama lo mikce" -> (Mary is nervous = about having cancer BECAUSE she will be going the doctor.)
  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  --gejyspa



------=_Part_15565_32925065.1199288640710--