From lojban-beginners+bncCMHEmaCOBhDugOLtBBoENjuqSA@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 27 13:45:51 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QFBcH-0001gR-BH; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:51 -0700 Received: by fxm14 with SMTP id 14sf2402996fxm.16 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=vRD4Pyyue5fToYL2VOP2YaLSTal7b+cyQQC5VJ2BGwY=; b=jTQYrtasU2EojVc6J6P0k0g2HVWKJ3zzsh4t28eiYqiWhIL+1nQVSYvTuKA9pCw0G5 5jlIrbFkNI/TbEqwq4hvmgHEtGOnHm5uqzv1poq3EfLSgtgR03OIRO6OtTiG/zQ1gVp4 GgsrpU1MlM4SVvnjvIF2yZkcIe/O/vCUXRvPA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=siZKwTOdHD2SjfZZxnoww2JJZkP7fp2SIRwcsG/uoHFE7NvBYQ1ZVT72jIY51wzOkv WHA3sbCVkKIFXAT+7HarjYGjDv85H69Zlc2QwUBElhOEXhTPdM2VlXd3NbddpmyIGlSz x/Y/nTeZE0ChUj0CdMemmCzT1WswaCgFf1OEk= Received: by 10.223.14.137 with SMTP id g9mr403682faa.0.1303937134315; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:34 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.223.78.196 with SMTP id m4ls284131fak.0.gmail; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.77.11 with SMTP id e11mr220688fak.17.1303937132878; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.77.11 with SMTP id e11mr220687fak.17.1303937132846; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com (mail-bw0-f46.google.com [209.85.214.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q4si119121fan.1.2011.04.27.13.45.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.46; Received: by mail-bw0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 15so2479921bwz.5 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.64.208 with SMTP id xj16mr38778bkb.60.1303937131582; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.191.80 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <7e5bdd6d-4bb8-415e-b50f-6a0d3e5454b4@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:45:31 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Why is CAhA a tense/modal? From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5430dfa89948b04a1ec854a --bcaec5430dfa89948b04a1ec854a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:28 PM, MorphemeAddict wrote: > It's easier to keep I and YOU than forever distinguish between I as speak= er > and YOU as listener. > Except that I /is/ /always/ the person speaking, and you /is/ /always/ the person listening. When you are speaking (as in cusku), I always refers to MorphemeAddict, and only refers to MorphemeAddict when you are speaking. When I am speaking, I refers to .aionys., and only refers to .aionys. when I am speaking. When .xorxes. is speaking, I always refers to .xorxes., and only refers to .xorxes. when he is speaking. > Besides, none of "speaker", "listener", "speak", "listener", or "-er" > (meaning 'one who does X') is part of NSM. > That's precisely my point. "I ... don't think they're very well chosen...." > And if the other person is currently speaking, then he is not I. > Then why am I, being the "other person ... currently speaking", am referrin= g to myself as "I"? > "I" can't be defined by simpler words. It, along with "YOU", "THIS", > "HERE", "NOW" are the basis of deixis, which I don't think you can (or > should) eliminate. > > Anyway, these words have been discussed in Wierzbicka's books, along with > why they are primitive. > > stevo > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote= : > >> {mi} isn't the speaker as in "The Speaker of the House". {mi} is the >> speaker as in "The person currently speaking". I am currently the person >> "speaking", you are currently the person "listening", therefore I am {mi= }, >> and you are {do}. When I stop being the speaker, due to no longer speaki= ng, >> someone else will become {mi}. >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:57 AM, MorphemeAddict wrote= : >> >>> "I" is (obviously) not the same as "speaker": 'You are the speaker" >>> doesn't mean "You are I". Also, "I am not the speaker" doesn't mean "I = am >>> not I". >>> >>> Same for "YOU" and "listener". >>> >>> stevo >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Jones wr= ote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:22 AM, MorphemeAddict wr= ote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Jones w= rote: >>>>> >>>>>> Well, here's hers: >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_metalanguage >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know if these are the same for every language- I assume so, >>>>>> since that's the point, yes?- but most of them are cmavo in Lojban. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also don't think they're very well chosen, as a lot of them are ea= sy >>>>>> to define without circularity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Really? Which ones? How would you define them? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, I and YOU, for a start. Lojban defines those as "the speaker" an= d >>>> "the listener", respectively. >>>> >>>> 2011/4/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, MorphemeAddict >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Circularity is avoidable. That's the whole point of Anna >>>>>>> Wierzbicka's >>>>>>> > Natural Semantic Metalanguage, which assumes a small number (~62) >>>>>>> of 'words' >>>>>>> > that can't be defined in terms of simpler words. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> > Almost all dictionaries are unapologetic about circularity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's easy to fix this "problem" for any dictionary as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (1) Take any word that appears in a definition but not as an entry >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> classify it as "primitive". >>>>>>> (2) Take any word that appears in its own definition and classify i= t >>>>>>> as "primitive". >>>>>>> (3) Pick any remaining entry, classify it as "well-defined" and >>>>>>> classify all still unclassified words in its definition as >>>>>>> "primitive". >>>>>>> (4) Repeat step (3) until you run out of entries. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You end up with a pile of words classified as "primitive" and anoth= er >>>>>>> pile classified as "well-defined". You can try all possible picking >>>>>>> orders for step (3) if you wish to minimize the set of primitives f= or >>>>>>> the dictionary, since different picking orders will result in >>>>>>> different sets of primitives. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be interesting to see how many primitives result from this >>>>>>> process for a typical dictionary, and how the resulting list of >>>>>>> "primitives" compares with Wierzbicka's. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mu'o mi'e xorxes >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> This would indeed be an interesting experiment. >>>>> >>>>> stevo >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> mu'o mi'e .aionys. >>>> >>>> .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o >>>> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) >>>> >>> >> -- >> mu'o mi'e .aionys. >> >> .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o >> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) >> > --=20 mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den. --bcaec5430dfa89948b04a1ec854a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:28 PM, MorphemeAddict = <lytlesw@gmail.co= m> wrote:
It's easier to keep I and YOU than forever distinguish between I a= s speaker and YOU as listener.
=A0
Except that I = /is/ /always/ the person speaking, and you /is/ /always/ the person listeni= ng.

When you are speaking (as in cusku), I always refers to MorphemeAddict,= and only refers to MorphemeAddict when you are speaking. When I am speakin= g, I refers to .aionys., and only refers to .aionys. when I am speaking. Wh= en .xorxes. is speaking, I always refers to .xorxes., and only refers to .x= orxes. when he is speaking.

=A0
Besides, none of "speaker", "listen= er", "speak", "listener", or "-er" (mean= ing 'one who does X') is part of NSM.

That's precisely my point. "I ... don't = think they're very well chosen...."
=A0
And if the other person is currently speaking, then he is not I.

Then why am I, being the "other person ... curr= ently speaking", am referring to myself as "I"?
=A0
"I"=A0can't be defined by simpler words. It, along with = "YOU", "THIS", "HERE", "NOW" are th= e basis of deixis, which I don't think you can (or should) eliminate. <= /div>
=A0
Anyway, these words have been discussed in Wierzbicka's books, alo= ng with why they are primitive.
=A0
stevo

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Jones = <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
{mi} isn't the speaker as in &quo= t;The Speaker of the House". {mi} is the speaker as in "The perso= n currently speaking". I am currently the person "speaking",= you are currently the person "listening", therefore I am {mi}, a= nd you are {do}. When I stop being the speaker, due to no longer speaking, = someone else will become {mi}.=20


On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:57 AM, MorphemeAddict = <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
"I" is (obviously) not the same as "speaker": '= ;You are the speaker" doesn't mean "You are I". Also, &q= uot;I am not the speaker" doesn't mean "I am not I".
=A0
Same for "YOU" and "listener".
=A0
stevo

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Jones = <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:22 AM, MorphemeAddict <= lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:


On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Jones <= eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, here's hers: = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_metalanguage

I don't know if these are the same for every language- I assume so,= since that's the point, yes?- but most of them are cmavo in Lojban.
I also don't think they're very well chosen, as a lot of them = are easy to define without circularity.=20

Really? Which ones? How would you define them?
=A0
Well, I and YOU, for a start. Lojban defines those as "the= speaker" and "the listener", respectively.

2011/4/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas <= ;jjllambias@gmail= .com>
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
&= gt;
> Circularity is avoidable. That's the whole point of Anna Wi= erzbicka's
> Natural Semantic Metalanguage, which assumes a small number (~62) of &= #39;words'
> that can't be defined in terms of simpler words.=
>>
> Almost all dictionaries are unapologetic about circularity.
It's easy to fix this "problem" for any dictionary as= follows:

(1) Take any word that appears in a definition but not as = an entry and
classify it as "primitive".
(2) Take any word that appears in = its own definition and classify it
as "primitive".
(3) Pick= any remaining entry, classify it as "well-defined" and
classi= fy all still unclassified words in its definition as
"primitive".
(4) Repeat step (3) until you run out of entries.=

You end up with a pile of words classified as "primitive"= and another
pile classified as "well-defined". You can try al= l possible picking
orders for step (3) if you wish to minimize the set of primitives for
th= e dictionary, since different picking orders will result in
different se= ts of primitives.

It would be interesting to see how many primitives= result from this
process for a typical dictionary, and how the resulting list of
"pr= imitives" compares with Wierzbicka's.

mu'o mi'e xor= xes
=A0
This would indeed be an interesting experiment.
=A0
stevo

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pil= no be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! L= uke, I am your father. :D )

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'uc= ai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come = to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
mu= 'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu= .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your= father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--bcaec5430dfa89948b04a1ec854a--