Y' think?

From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - = LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
To= : lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] request for a new= gismu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episodic_memory

I have not been following this thread. I think that the problem may b= e excessively literally reading some aspects of the gismu list while ignori= ng others.

Ian Johnson wrote:
> This has already been mentione= d, and the answer is the same: you should
> be able to say "I remembe= r something about someone's experience of being
> pregnant" (for exam= ple, that she got morning sickness) and "I remember
> the experience = of being pregnant [which I experienced myself]". Another
> way of loo= king at this is that the relationship between x2 and x3, x1
> aside, = is fundamental to djuno/morji/most other gismu that involve du'u,
> w= hich 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
> <mturniansky@gmail.com <mailto:mturniansky@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>= ; 'Course, I don't know why no one has mentioned= the obvious-to-me
> solution. Unlike the se morj= i, the _te_morji is not strongly-cased
> to du'u. = There is nothing wrong with saying "mi morji [zi'o?] fi lo
> &= nbsp; li'i se tarbi"?
>
> &n= bsp; = --gejyspa
>
>
>
> O= n Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.= com
> <mailto:blindbravado@gmail.com>> = wrote:
>
> Not the same thing, tho= ugh, as we've been saying repeatedly;
> r= emembering facts about an experience and the experience itself
> = ; are different concepts.
>
> &nbs= p; 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 differ= ent "concepts" as opposed to different memories.

More importantly, m= orji was not created assuming these as different concepts.

> = ; On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:55 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de=
> <mailto:seladwa@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> la .van.= cu cusku di'e
>
> &n= bsp; On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:09:17AM -0500, Craig Daniel
>= wrote:
> > = Isn't this just the distinction between remembering
> &= nbsp; a nu and
>&nb= sp; remembe= ring a du'u? Or am I missing something?
>
>
> &nb= sp; 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}
> &= nbsp; (see definition), so normally you shouldn't be allowed
>= ; to use {morji} wi= th {nu}/{li'i}.

morji is NOT restricted to du'u. The parenthet= ical use in the gismu list is NOT a restriction (and indeed there aren't re= ally ANY restrictions so long as it is grammatical - the semantics of lojba= n has not been formally defined).

It is an indication that, at the t= ime the definition was written, it was believed that the place would most c= ommonly be filled by an abstraction of that type, as opposed to a non-abstr= action. 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 plac= e 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 d= efinition 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 fr= om a book or a play, but what I am recalling is probably not the "fact" tha= t the quoted text was in the book; I am recalling the quote itself, trigger= ed 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 presu= mably 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 luj= vo are a type that is not necessarily achievable using jvajvo rules, becaus= e we didn't really build the tools for semantic-rules-based lujvo-making in= to 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 th= e Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, sen= d email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<= br>For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lo= jban?hl=3Den.