Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:59258) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RS7dn-0005ur-FY; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 05:41:15 -0800 Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10sf4655771vbb.16 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 05:40:56 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GiDp/u60IJrmaO3hkUNOdj6FCQj5UpeqR35jthnUc1Y=; b=lFiWeFcaDvG3pmg0SRQVgTmCfWCJJK2/4ns5joRwI0Y22ZQefSUcSM0kOOT4HYPGZi UOgEtH4gT9w9eToGimS6FX3CdzGfX0KP3IRD8CAFZBiQMy3rskPfY/pxnC7lHzjNM7jS 87NcFdOj/pRqOGQZzQtp3XmS/CzK8V/EUWRkY= Received: by 10.52.117.179 with SMTP id kf19mr595006vdb.20.1321796454534; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 05:40:54 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.8.196 with SMTP id i4ls6757020vci.0.canary; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 05:40:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.64.173 with SMTP id p13mr13956648vds.0.1321796453745; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 05:40:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.64.173 with SMTP id p13mr13956647vds.0.1321796453735; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 05:40:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmfepo101.cox.net (eastrmfepo101.cox.net. [68.230.241.213]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id bu17si3445166vdc.0.2011.11.20.05.40.53; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 05:40:53 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.213 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.213; Received: from eastrmimpo305.cox.net ([68.230.241.237]) by eastrmfepo101.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20111120134053.KJJE24648.eastrmfepo101.cox.net@eastrmimpo305.cox.net> for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:40:53 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.237.100]) by eastrmimpo305.cox.net with bizsmtp id zRgm1h0012AfMYu02RgmLM; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:40:52 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020205.4EC90365.0032,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=hgVe+80/5MJh+KE4o1dJmFHaSAHMlRzcFfmfFruTitY= c=1 sm=1 a=dYDkaTZZu5wA:10 a=LNyRDDSfcIoA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=8pif782wAAAA:8 a=vJaUNcOIF2xWZaXdFvcA:9 a=94lH4hPvypdgvBccWukA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=KizbKPq0oQsZu93V:21 a=uPvQSYO-OGBt6iWN:21 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4EC9035C.7070801@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:40:44 -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> <4EC79BA7.4080707@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.213 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and > Founder - LLG wrote: >=20 >>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. >=20 >=20 > What were the other intended modals among the BAIs besides "ni'i"? Since I was largely oblivious of the concept of "modal" when I=20 reinvented the cmavo, having only recognized that JCB had made them=20 grammatically identical to sumti tcita and used them as such, I would=20 simply look at the list of modals that JCB identified in Loglan 1, and=20 pick out the Lojban equivalent (and there is one for each of them) > Consider these two sentences: >=20 > (1) ka'e ku no da klama lo tersla >=20 > (2) no da ka'e klama lo tersla >=20 > I would translate them as "it's possible nobody comes to the party" > and "nobody can come to the party" respectively. The first one is > clearly not about capability, and the second one may be about > capability but probably just circumstantial rather than innate. > If I understand your position correctly, you would understand them > both as the implausible "nobody is innately capable of coming to the > party". I don't agree with your translation of the first one, which I see as=20 being just a rearrangement of the second one. The meaning of the second=20 probably is affected by xorlo, but pre-xorlo with le tersla I would have=20 understood it as "Nothing could have come to the party". Which brings to mind that the glico word (which I think is a modal) that=20 I associate with kakne is "could have", recognizing that in English, the=20 distinction between can and may often is more associated with capability=20 vs permission rather than capability vs possibility And in order to express my meanings with a modal you would > have to go with something like: >=20 > (1') na ku ni'i ku na ku no da klama lo tersla > > (2') no da na ku ni'i ku na ku klama lo tersla I would express "it's possible nobody comes to the party" as "cumki fa=20 lo nu noda klama le tersla", and "nobody can come to the party" as your=20 (2) (noting the malrarna interpretation of noda as nobody rather than=20 nothing) I don't see how logical necessity enters into the question at all, so I=20 cannot interpret your two prime examples into any kind of standard English. 1' It is not the case that some unspecified logic necessitates that=20 nothing comes to a party. 2' Nothing is not (logically necessarily not coming to a party) - the=20 noda and naku have become prenex-like > which can be simplified a bit by noting that "na ku no da" =3D "su'o da" > and "no da na ku" =3D "ro da", I thought "naku noda" =3D "ro da", but I may be half asleep. I'm not sure= =20 of your version. so: >=20 > (1'') na ku ni'i ku su'o da klama lo tersla It is not the case that (logically) necessarily someone comes to a party. > (2'') ro da ni'i ku na ku klama lo tersla Everything (logically) necessarily is not coming to a party. > "it is not necessarily the case that someone comes to the party" and > "everyone is necessarily not coming to the party". >=20 > The problem of using "ni'i" for "necessarily" though is that it may > interfere with its other use for logical entailment. What other meaning of necessarily are you trying to convey other than=20 logical entailment (with no specified logic). Maybe I am simply failing to grasp what you mean by "necessarily" >"te sau" is a slightly better candidate, That is another meaning of "necessarily", I agree if it weren't for the x2 of "sarcu". Since tersau refers to the x3 of sarcu, I am not sure how x2 is=20 relevant. If I were to re-express the sentence using sarcu, x2 would=20 probably be the bridi that is dependent. x1 seems more problematical,=20 since the meat of the claim is in the x3. But remember that BAI wasn't originally fi'o broda, at least not=20 strictly - that was a later insight that allowed us to clarify the use=20 and semantics of BAI as a class. The assignment of modals into BAI might=20 have suffered from that, if we chose the wrong broda for the modals in BAI. I just (finally) looked up modal logic in Wikipedia to perhaps gain some=20 context. They use two sample sentences: In a classical modal logic, each can be expressed by the other with=20 negation: ... it is possible that it will rain today if and only if it is not=20 necessary that it will not rain today; and it is necessary that it will rain today if and only if it is not=20 possible that it will not rain today. It seems to me that we have a greater problem in Lojban expressing that=20 sense of "possible" than we do "necessary", since "possible" for me has=20 never excluded "necessary". It certainly is the case that we did not=20 consider modal logic of this sort in designing Lojban (well, I cannot=20 say that pc did not, but I don't think he communicated it to me). Most of the focus was on concepts that dated to Aristotle (noting that=20 my knowledge of what that means is somewhat less than my knowledge of=20 "logic"); pc often referred to how Aristotle discussed/divided matters=20 in his discussions. Looking further, and without having dug into the ancient correspondence=20 yet, I think CAhA had more to do with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality than with modal logic, with ca'a being Aristotle's actuality and ka'e=20 being his potentiality, though the discussion there gets far more=20 complex than what we talked about with CAhA. --=20 Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc. --=20 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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.