Received: from mail-ia0-f188.google.com ([209.85.210.188]:43710) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TvTZz-0003Cf-8C; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:03:12 -0800 Received: by mail-ia0-f188.google.com with SMTP id b27sf71365iaa.25 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:02:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :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=pAeWhTUIZ6rLypvOCxThNcXYhmd6hvYCumH+bkSXhoE=; b=qkIPY3a8y6cFsSGfXxv9CV503u4FcPGJg7WcP3WTnb+QaZDXvnOYIXFPDjjNRHL/xW fWfnpYqIbIt+1IqImLTpH5DySq5X6txmgjDcOsj547A+x5eX0L1kMtcBa3auUhRz5UXX x/MK6xLxZtpzznGBgEa1aPPtsm/801llPi/uzT5mMXnZBRYkk53GraEx7WSsgWnsoFEJ +XxPLWapX3bhG08cdSVbrTbuqN7pIwkLmirYrSgmarqVRiXf9zRk7y5Mj13wTobhxoJR rSuurfOasbm9QeTBXryyD5omRZ5i4NLY5onu+vfscdSHeRwlduIF5F2CaYEdKIBJnGtl Vrew== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :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=pAeWhTUIZ6rLypvOCxThNcXYhmd6hvYCumH+bkSXhoE=; b=JwY4GWzQ4UaTr5W4lpv0LWJlDXFplr4YlerWDeHUrDatmmuROnQl3ieRI+JEH4BhI7 3WEn0I1zTQPaHRZmMAQL2HyWSNIvRBFESZgX+FyVrxGdmS5LM2vBl4aR4pMDg4vVNrdu dk28eFDDwFw4U01XoJBLrGSNZh9YAVU1Jv2Cj4nV7/93iO6/5Tpy4q7Eh7TL7Y18dsc/ vbtiAZoNg3+4Nj/Nl8ljaysuijjgDH/9mYvluUxh8Glb1z/7YZjuVL2lb7IW28ie5AsY 053nvqOhKlRfIVhCqUhj/apjULM711ik84so9zF52t+KGfYDauKerRfjPchR0fC+cL6Q skHw== X-Received: by 10.49.15.38 with SMTP id u6mr215429qec.8.1358344972561; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:02:52 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.74.42 with SMTP id q10ls866457qev.65.gmail; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:02:52 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.116.34 with SMTP id jt2mr198990qeb.38.1358344972177; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:02:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:02:51 -0800 (PST) From: la gleki To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <50F6A877.20208@lojban.org> References:

<20130109142120.GF14601@samsa.fritz.box> <50ED84E7.7070405@gmx.de> <50F6A877.20208@lojban.org> Subject: Re: [lojban] request for a new gismu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episodic_memory MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@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_213_33536695.1358344971851" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_213_33536695.1358344971851 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:17:43 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote: > > 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. > Wikipedia mentions episodic and semantic memory (see the title of this thread). > > 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). > *ju'o *no language can have it's semantics fully described. > 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 loj...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/n7QZOuiUHIgJ. 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. ------=_Part_213_33536695.1358344971851 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:17:43 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:I have not been following this thre= ad. I think that the problem may be=20
excessively literally reading some aspects of the gismu list while=20
ignoring others.

Ian Johnson wrote:
> This has already been mentioned, and the answer is the same: you s= hould
> be able to say "I remember something about someone's experience of= being
> pregnant" (for example, that she got morning sickness) and "I reme= mber
> the experience of being pregnant [which I experienced myself]". An= other
> 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 sen= se.
>
> mi'e la latro'a mu'o
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturn...@gmail.com <mailto:mturn...@gmail.c= om>> wrote:
>
> 'Course, I don't know why no one has me= ntioned the obvious-to-me
> solution. Unlike the se morji, the _te_morji i= s not strongly-cased
> to du'u. There is nothing wrong with saying "m= i morji [zi'o?] fi lo
> li'i se tarbi"?
>
> &nb= sp; --gejyspa
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com
> <mailto:blindb...@gmail.com>>= ; wrote:
>
> Not the same thing, though, as we've b= een 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=20
presumptuous to claim that these are different "concepts" as opposed to= =20
different memories.

Wikipedia mentions episodic and semant= ic memory (see the title of this thread).

More importantly, morji was not created assuming these as different=20
concepts.

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:55 AM, selpa'= i <sel...@gmx.de
> <mailto:sel...@gmx.de>= > wrote:
>
> la .van. cu cusku di'e
>
> On Wed, Ja= n 09, 2013 at 09:09:17AM -0500, Craig Daniel
> wrote:
>
> &nb= sp; Isn't this just the distinction between remembering
> &nb= sp; a nu and
> &nb= sp; remembering a du'u? Or am I missing something?
>
>
> More betwe= en {morji lo du'u} and {morji lo li'i}
> as was poi= nted out already.
>
> However, a= t the moment {morji} is restricted to {du'u}
> (see defin= ition), so normally you shouldn't be allowed
> to use {mo= rji} with {nu}/{li'i}.

morji is NOT restricted to du'u. The parenthetical use in the gis= mu=20
list is NOT a restriction (and indeed there aren't really ANY=20
restrictions so long as it is grammatical - the semantics of lojban has= =20
not been formally defined).

ju'o no language can have it's = semantics fully described.

It is an indication that, at the time the definition was written, it wa= s=20
believed that the place would most commonly be filled by an abstraction= =20
of that type, as opposed to a non-abstraction. These parenthetica= l=20
invocations of abstraction were added to the place structures as a=20
warning against sumti-raising, which was the then-major topic in=20
semantics of the time. I went through all of the place structures= =20
trying to word them to get people to avoid raising a sumti from an=20
implied abstraction and using it in place of the abstraction.

A different abstraction is certainly permissible, and indeed the=20
definition says "remembers/recalls/recollects facts/memory x2" A = du'u=20
is obviously what one remembers when one remembers a "fact", but is not= =20
how one would normally express a "memory" which might indeed be a li'i.= =20
I/we simply had not considered the full possibilities of how one= =20
describes a memory, and thus did not specify how to do so in x2. = We had=20
used du'u, and most important, wanted to stress that the place was=20
normally going to be an abstraction.

But I'm not sure that it can even be said that x2 of morji will always= =20
be an abstraction. I might recall a quote from a book or a play, = but=20
what I am recalling is probably not the "fact" that the quoted text was= =20
in the book; I am recalling the quote itself, triggered by current=20
context that is telling me that the quote is relevant to that context.

One can claim, I think somewhat arbitrarily), that memorizing a quote i= s=20
a different sort of memory than a fact or an episode. If so, one = might=20
make lujvo based on morji to distinguish the presumably different memor= y=20
types of facts, quotes, and episodes, and define the place structure of= =20
the lujvo specific to your more restricted meaning.

(I think I should note that such specialized and restricted-meaning=20
lujvo are a type that is not necessarily achievable using jvajvo rules,= =20
because we didn't really build the tools for semantic-rules-based=20
lujvo-making into the language - the concept of having rules to=20
determine place structures was an afterthought regularization devised b= y=20
Nick Nicolas as a result of his analysis of patterns of how people=20
actually were making lujvo).

lojbab
--=20
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org <= a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org" target=3D"_blank">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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/n7= QZOuiUHIgJ.
=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_213_33536695.1358344971851--