Received: from mail-oa0-f62.google.com ([209.85.219.62]:44736) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TvSsI-0002mj-Gr; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:18:04 -0800 Received: by mail-oa0-f62.google.com with SMTP id h2sf800141oag.27 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:17:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received: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 :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=GorqLJz+HFg7BVD2KSqrtWhYXIrmTYIg6tHMhozZ5F4=; b=uKGbS7UfJ0ZYCublmP0J7Wzvf3T+eOhH/HT3fhj+gJlsyyluBVCeyp2m+uS2x9vhIk ErftuDn7z3e2DeoRil8M6PMfbMZGpIRh0fY+qlfefUM8BbgnLPAGXfNqRtA7zc9AC9VJ Vn6tggzP/S2lqDbsLyldEwh8jk/TEdzDN4xc0ErgnmKHZh9QgtrvvYZxcehiCMHms8Ev yzsSbMwP7zRtFx3o7KvKS/Kb6i2dz5nPWMvAJfMkKsmgu1+qgUxn7D25uqexK3cdzec2 yEejHQMtwwx0+FOOvFMQOoFGDeG8AFSWLWQCVfqyv1kAJifpw0NBBIkLnl6zZsLg0pVb jbdA== X-Received: by 10.49.62.164 with SMTP id z4mr185800qer.34.1358342264087; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:17:44 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.94.82 with SMTP id da18ls876056qeb.26.gmail; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:17:43 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.224.198.196 with SMTP id ep4mr785066qab.3.1358342263539; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:17:43 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.224.198.196 with SMTP id ep4mr785065qab.3.1358342263527; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:17:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmfepo201.cox.net (eastrmfepo201.cox.net. [68.230.241.216]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id r17si2273539qcp.1.2013.01.16.05.17.43; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:17:43 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.216; Received: from eastrmimpo209 ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo201.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20130116131743.FZTM17456.eastrmfepo201.cox.net@eastrmimpo209> for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:17:43 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([98.169.148.216]) by eastrmimpo209 with cox id odHi1k00X4gNKFm01dHibV; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:17:43 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020205.50F6A877.003D,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=E5JPVNhl c=1 sm=1 a=oMUrf2L0cPa+6Alu0knKiQ==:17 a=YsUzL_8ObRgA:10 a=yqXmfhk-q3AA:10 a=NxBXcQ4hvLoA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=8pif782wAAAA:8 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=f5TmDQ1XskkA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=kkPclDXmtNciu3JCGZUA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=_RhRFcbxBZMA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=WyX6j0ukzUuu4B09:21 a=A622WNk0LSgYFPe2:21 a=oMUrf2L0cPa+6Alu0knKiQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <50F6A877.20208@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:17:43 -0500 From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] request for a new gismu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episodic_memory References:

<20130109142120.GF14601@samsa.fritz.box> <50ED84E7.7070405@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 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: / I have not been following this thread. I think that the problem may be excessively literally reading some aspects of the gismu list while ignoring others. Ian Johnson wrote: > This has already been mentioned, and the answer is the same: you should > be able to say "I remember something about someone's experience of being > pregnant" (for example, that she got morning sickness) and "I remember > the experience of being pregnant [which I experienced myself]". Another > way of looking at this is that the relationship between x2 and x3, x1 > aside, is fundamental to djuno/morji/most other gismu that involve du'u, > which makes it so the zi'o deletion doesn't even entirely make sense. > > mi'e la latro'a mu'o > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Michael Turniansky > > wrote: > > 'Course, I don't know why no one has mentioned the obvious-to-me > solution. Unlike the se morji, the _te_morji is not strongly-cased > to du'u. There is nothing wrong with saying "mi morji [zi'o?] fi lo > li'i se tarbi"? > > --gejyspa > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Ian Johnson > wrote: > > Not the same thing, though, as we've been saying repeatedly; > remembering facts about an experience and the experience itself > are different concepts. > > mi'e la latro'a mu'o Until we know more about how the brain does memory, it seems presumptuous to claim that these are different "concepts" as opposed to different memories. More importantly, morji was not created assuming these as different concepts. > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:55 AM, selpa'i > wrote: > > la .van. cu cusku di'e > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:09:17AM -0500, Craig Daniel > wrote: > > Isn't this just the distinction between remembering > a nu and > remembering a du'u? Or am I missing something? > > > More between {morji lo du'u} and {morji lo li'i} > as was pointed out already. > > However, at the moment {morji} is restricted to {du'u} > (see definition), so normally you shouldn't be allowed > to use {morji} with {nu}/{li'i}. morji is NOT restricted to du'u. The parenthetical use in the gismu list is NOT a restriction (and indeed there aren't really ANY restrictions so long as it is grammatical - the semantics of lojban has not been formally defined). It is an indication that, at the time the definition was written, it was believed that the place would most commonly be filled by an abstraction of that type, as opposed to a non-abstraction. These parenthetical invocations of abstraction were added to the place structures as a warning against sumti-raising, which was the then-major topic in semantics of the time. I went through all of the place structures trying to word them to get people to avoid raising a sumti from an implied abstraction and using it in place of the abstraction. A different abstraction is certainly permissible, and indeed the definition says "remembers/recalls/recollects facts/memory x2" A du'u is obviously what one remembers when one remembers a "fact", but is not how one would normally express a "memory" which might indeed be a li'i. I/we simply had not considered the full possibilities of how one describes a memory, and thus did not specify how to do so in x2. We had used du'u, and most important, wanted to stress that the place was normally going to be an abstraction. But I'm not sure that it can even be said that x2 of morji will always be an abstraction. I might recall a quote from a book or a play, but what I am recalling is probably not the "fact" that the quoted text was in the book; I am recalling the quote itself, triggered by current context that is telling me that the quote is relevant to that context. One can claim, I think somewhat arbitrarily), that memorizing a quote is a different sort of memory than a fact or an episode. If so, one might make lujvo based on morji to distinguish the presumably different memory types of facts, quotes, and episodes, and define the place structure of the lujvo specific to your more restricted meaning. (I think I should note that such specialized and restricted-meaning lujvo are a type that is not necessarily achievable using jvajvo rules, because we didn't really build the tools for semantic-rules-based lujvo-making into the language - the concept of having rules to determine place structures was an afterthought regularization devised by Nick Nicolas as a result of his analysis of patterns of how people actually were making lujvo). 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.