Received: from mail-ob0-f189.google.com ([209.85.214.189]:64944) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1T0SAF-0005h3-Uk; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:00:53 -0700 Received: by obbun3 with SMTP id un3sf3465199obb.16 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:00:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version: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=ZiyabLQrBtKsjZJbLBJygpNqYYrYfJJTlpCHkkW/xjM=; b=4xnq/FNnNS2QSFxMBAKs0ePHqcrA9eVj/w4/ZZ23ATQVRRKg08DsJWVRQYK38j/ku0 bZTePbbEbzuHiWo2QGzbod4Cz+Qi+Ie6xktxmrDdL5OF4bdJr1vulygOlgMCNHnznCEr mbtjykCOmVhYWs3Uoo2clytmdxOOuOC8mo2r4= Received: by 10.52.21.235 with SMTP id y11mr884183vde.4.1344754837170; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:00:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.223.69 with SMTP id ij5ls4055970vcb.6.gmail; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.180.202 with SMTP id dq10mr878768vdc.17.1344754836558; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:00:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com Cc: John E Clifford Message-Id: <4b384b49-3761-4110-aaea-5dcc59fd3a1d@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1344741225.61800.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <50255C09.10805@lojban.org> <1344701600.97921.YahooMailNeo@web184405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1344741225.61800.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}={.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_42_17094339.1344754834098" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_42_17094339.1344754834098 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sunday, August 12, 2012 7:13:45 AM UTC+4, clifford wrote: > > No, this misunderstands a basic distinction in Lojban between assertions= =20 > and the rest and is just wrong for the function of words like {ai} and = =20 > {ui}. There is a difference between being disingenuous and lying and th= at=20 > appears in the difference between saying {ui} and {mi gleki} when I am no= t=20 > happy: the first may be misleading but is not false (since not an=20 > assertion), the second is an assertion and is false. Mixing the two up, = as=20 > people have been doing for 55 years in Logjam > John, stop calling it Logjam after all! :) > , is a basic logical mistake and the source of a large number of stupid= =20 > arguments on the relevant lists (this may be one of them). The source is= ,=20 > of course, the English habit of not distinguishing the two verbally, one= =20 > among many of the reasons for designing Logjam. I am unclear what a trut= h=20 > function that takes a person as an argument might be; typically they take= a=20 > sentence in a particular frame, which does indeed contain the speaker as = a=20 > relevant factor (the referent of "I", for example), but not a direct=20 > argument. to be sure, the adequacy condition on a truth function applied= =20 > to "I am happy" requires that the referent of "I", the speaker, be in the= =20 > class of happy persons, but that is a another matter. There is no truth= =20 > function that takes {ui} as an argument, whether or not there is some=20 > function that takes the speaker as an argument. > > {ai} is a harder case, because sometimes we rely peoples expressed=20 > intentions (not, it seems, on the intention to go, though one can build= =20 > cases that are as significant as the intetion to give a million). Not=20 > fulfilling those expectations can cause very bad feeling, even, in certai= n=20 > cases, law suits or the like, or violence. But that does not mean that t= he=20 > expression of the intention was a lie, even if it was misleading. It may= =20 > not even be disingenuous, as xorxes points out, being what the speaker=20 > intended at the time, before he changed his mind -- or discovered that hi= s=20 > fortune had disappeared or ... Promising to give someone the moon may b= e=20 > over the top or metaphorical, but it isn't false (nor true neither), at= =20 > most it is insincere and unfulfillable (as of now, at least -- there is a= =20 > treaty on that isn't there?) And, there are more ways to deceive than by= =20 > lying. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mike S. > > *To:* loj...@googlegroups.com =20 > *Sent:* Saturday, August 11, 2012 9:32 PM > *Subject:* Re: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}=3D{.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention > =20 > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Jorge Llamb=EDas > > wrote: > > > At least no claim or assertion can do it, but you can use a > proposition for other purposes than making claims. "ca'e" is supposed > to mark a sentence as a performative (despite its gloss), so if you > say "ca'e mi jarco lo nu mi brodu lo nu klama"; "I hereby express my > intention to go", you are thereby expressing an intention to go. So > ".ai" could be taken as an abreviated form of "ca'e mi jarco lo nu mi > brodu". Similarly for other attitudinals, "ui" is similar to "ca'e mi > jarco lo nu mi gleki", "I hereby display my happiness", and so on. > (The wordy form doesn't quite have the same practical effect though.) > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > I would think that ".ui" simply means "I am happy", not "I display my=20 > happiness". Either way, if the speaker is actually unhappy, I think that= =20 > we have to admit that he is being disingenuous to his audience if he utte= rs=20 > ".ui" with no hint of irony. Because of this, I think these attitudinals= =20 > are as truth-functional as any brivla: they evaluate to a real truth valu= e=20 > given two arguments: the speaker and the proposition that the attitudinal= =20 > is embedded in. Obviously it's hard to know if a person is truthful in th= e=20 > expression of his own feelings, but there are sometimes signs, and the=20 > truth value of such expressions are still there, however hidden. > > Even more so in the case with the irrealis attitudinals. If I say ".ai [= I=20 > am giving you a million bucks tomorrow]" when I know that I am bankrupt a= nd=20 > all my banking accounts are overdrawn then clearly I am lying to you. ".= ai=20 > mi dunda la lunra do" is simply (literally) false when uttered by any=20 > non-delusional interlocutor. > > > > > --=20 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20 > lojban+un...@googlegroups.com . > For more options, visit this group at=20 > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > >=20 --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lo= jban/-/uXhqNKc533cJ. 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. ------=_Part_42_17094339.1344754834098 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 7:13:45 AM UTC+4, clifford wrote:
No, this mis= understands a basic distinction in Lojban between assertions and the rest a= nd is just wrong for the function of words like {ai} and  {ui}.  = There is a difference between being disingenuous and lying and  that a= ppears in the difference between saying {ui} and {mi gleki} when I am not h= appy: the first may be misleading but is not false (since not an assertion)= , the second is an assertion and is false.  Mixing the two up, as peop= le have been doing for 55 years in Logjam
John, stop calling it Logjam after all! :)
=
, is = a basic logical mistake and the source of a large number of stupid argument= s on the relevant lists (this may be one of them).  The source is, of course, = the English habit of not distinguishing the two verbally, one among many of= the reasons for designing Logjam.  I am unclear what a truth function= that takes a person as an argument might be; typically they take a sentenc= e in a particular frame, which does indeed contain the speaker as a relevan= t factor (the referent of "I", for example), but not a direct argument.&nbs= p; to be sure, the adequacy condition on a truth function applied to "I am = happy" requires that the referent of "I", the speaker, be in the class of h= appy persons, but that is a another matter.  There is no truth functio= n that takes {ui} as an argument, whether or not there is some function tha= t takes the speaker as an argument.

{ai} is a harder case, because s= ometimes we rely peoples expressed intentions (not, it seems, on the intent= ion to go, though one can build cases that are as significant as the intetion to give a million).  Not fulfilling those expectations can c= ause very bad feeling, even, in certain cases, law suits or the like, or vi= olence.  But that does not mean that the expression of the intention w= as a lie, even if it was misleading.  It may not even be disingenuous,= as xorxes points out, being what the speaker intended at the time, before = he changed his mind -- or discovered that his fortune had disappeared or ..= .   Promising to give someone the moon may be over the top or met= aphorical, but it isn't false (nor true neither), at most it is insincere a= nd unfulfillable (as of now, at least -- there is a treaty on that isn't th= ere?)  And, there are more ways to deceive than by lying.


Fr= om: Mike S. <mai...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 11,= 2012 9:32 PM
Subject: R= e: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}=3D{.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention
<= /div>


On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjlla...@gmail.com> wro= te:

At least no claim or assertion can do it, but you can use a
proposition for other purposes than making claims. "ca'e" is supposed
to mark a sentence as a performative (despite its gloss), so if you
say "ca'e mi jarco lo nu mi brodu lo nu klama"; "I hereby express my
intention to go", you are thereby expressing an intention to go. So
".ai" could be taken as an abreviated form of "ca'e mi jarco lo nu mi
brodu". Similarly for other attitudinals, "ui" is similar to "ca'e mi
jarco lo nu mi gleki", "I hereby display my happiness", and so on.
(The wordy form doesn't quite have the same practical effect though.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


I would think that ".ui" s= imply means "I am happy", not "I display my happiness".  Either way, i= f the speaker is actually unhappy, I think that we have to admit that he is= being disingenuous to his audience if he utters ".ui" with no hint of iron= y.  Because of this, I think these attitudinals are as truth-functiona= l as any brivla: they evaluate to a real truth value given two arguments: t= he speaker and the proposition that the attitudinal is embedded in. Obvious= ly it's hard to know if a person is truthful in the expression of his own f= eelings, but there are sometimes signs, and the truth value of such express= ions are still there, however hidden.

Even more so in the case with the irrealis attitudinals.  If I say= ".ai [I am giving you a million bucks tomorrow]" when I know that I am ban= krupt and all my banking accounts are overdrawn then clearly I am lying to = you.  ".ai mi dunda la lunra do" is simply (literally) false when utte= red by any non-delusional interlocutor.




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


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/uX= hqNKc533cJ.
=20 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.
------=_Part_42_17094339.1344754834098--