Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:51256) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RRjgH-0005jL-4E; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:06:09 -0800 Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10sf2417814vbb.16 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:05:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:organization :user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-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=klAU8tTx2cLPrjWqI3DyuUKel2OORLVpr+U8jnKBfeM=; b=Rk2dXLMIS2XelzALkzx2b+wbPeuNXx8jKcSvkqjybI58DyihUgao18OasAwHQu02q8 m2oxpZD4EzxKCSv+KWFSINvHobU/G/FhZzUoBVj4j3n3BiGrJM5zHg7iSCfwjOMr/7Sv PE+ay2QjAzSKhTGoedrVlPP3wC38fPHaMQpK4= Received: by 10.52.100.228 with SMTP id fb4mr3488870vdb.2.1321704352024; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:05:52 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.20.204 with SMTP id p12ls1387257vde.1.gmail; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:05:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.35.206 with SMTP id k14mr9662821vdj.5.1321704350994; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:05:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.35.206 with SMTP id k14mr9662817vdj.5.1321704350987; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:05:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmfepo202.cox.net (eastrmfepo202.cox.net. [68.230.241.217]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id cn4si1876746vdb.3.2011.11.19.04.05.50; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:05:50 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.217 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.217; Received: from eastrmimpo210.cox.net ([68.230.241.225]) by eastrmfepo202.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20111119120550.NDIP2803.eastrmfepo202.cox.net@eastrmimpo210.cox.net> for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:05:50 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.237.100]) by eastrmimpo210.cox.net with bizsmtp id z05p1h00U2AfMYu0205pVg; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:05:50 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A02020B.4EC79B9E.0058,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=De1JiIk2RxanYFgc+XGFICsyHMGw9Zzh53vWvxwLytc= c=1 sm=1 a=dYDkaTZZu5wA:10 a=LNyRDDSfcIoA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=mVt1RjzsGo53e1y3VWAA:9 a=rpM4H-iNsnt0ycXt2ykA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=ovwMZvEWbGkgCHjM:21 a=klgfjh2FLBxUGkWN:21 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4EC79BA7.4080707@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:05:59 -0500 From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like References: <1321501066.64722.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

<1321633769.30584.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4EC702E8.1000004@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.217 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / maikxlx wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Bob LeChevalier, President and > Founder - LLG wrote: > >>>>>Also, while {cumki} does express possibility, {ka'e}, from the given >>>>>definitions, seems to be more about ability than possibility. >>>> >>>>But whose ability? Each of the arguments of the relation modified by >>>>"ka'e"? The x1? The agent (assuming there is one)? >>> >>>You're asking me?! Well since you asked, from what I see, I would >>>definitely assume the x1, given the glosses, proposed keywords, and >>>examples in the CLL and BPFK. >> >>That was the intent (or rather the "subject" rather than x1, since you could >>access the x2 with "se brivla" etc), though I admit that I didn't and still >>don't really understand why it couldn't apply to one of the other places. >> >>If I make a ka'e capability claim involving all the places of klama, then >>the claim applies just as much to the place gone to as to the go-er. If I >>can go to a place (from somewhere else by some route), then that place can >>be gone to by me, and likewise, if I cannot, then it cannot. >> > > I have to disagree; I think that {kakne} capability manifests itself > differently among each of the bridi places. Specifically the capacity > of a goer to be a goer is expressible as something like {lo ka ka'e > klama}, while the capacity to be a place gone-to is {lo ka ka'e se > klama} -- assuming that {ka'e} carries from {kakne}, which is > something that xorxes disputes. But of course the capability of lo klama to be such is the capability to klama x2 x3 x4 x5, and its capability is dependent on the values of x2, x3, x4, and x5, and correspondingly, the claim seems evident that this is strongly associated with the capability of that x2 to se klama x1 x3 x4 x5, and with the capability of x3 to te klama x2 x1 x4 x5, etc. >>"possible" (cumki) seems to ONLY be about events, whereas I thought ka'e and >>CAhA was more about the sumti that participate in the events. Maybe there >>isn't a lot of difference, though. > > I agree with you here about {cumki} and {kakne}. In ordinary > conversation, often the difference is not great, Since that is the only sort of language use I know how to deal with, I plead guilty %^) > as the non-existence > of purely modal-logical operators in Lojban up until now would seem to > prove. But from a logical point of view, the difference is rather > important. I defer to the experts. >>Or maybe pc and I understood at the time that necessity was not something >>covered in CAhA, (since I am pretty sure he has *at least* a "foggiest >>notion".) >> > > Sounds like someone has some 'splainin to do. Well, CAhA was certainly not intended to be the category "modal-logical operators", and BAI was originally intended to include all of the pure modals, since the insight from the JCB era was that linguistically the modals and case tags/sumti tcita could be used in grammatically interchangeable ways (we didn't think too much about semantic differences, only grammatical ones). The intent at that point was that ni'i used as a modal would handle logical necessity, and its possible use as a sumti tag was consistent with this meaning. BAI has evolved over the years, and is much more strongly associated with the place structures of the associated gismu per the fi'o equivalence, and this may have lost something from the intended modals that are among the set of BAI. Indeed, I think the current TLI language may treat ALL of the words that comprise their current modal AND tense AND case tag complex as being a single category to be combined willy-nilly in strings with no internal grammatical structure, as if all of them were members of selma'o PU. That was the case in 1987, and I doubt that it changed. lojbab -- Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.