Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.128.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.128.180;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <1624063.Mlons9rkM5@caracal>
References: <2456930.oZJB8i4mUH@caracal>
	<CAPAJj9JBuPcH-+nmh3E_Dc0gzSvqskX2By_OWLicBL3F_8btbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1624063.Mlons9rkM5@caracal>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:06:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPAJj9J3Vkc7_A8hNf_TW=-551NhgivVeu2Yg9=Z1=PeXUQaVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] according to
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On 20 March 2013 08:45, Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 07:12:48 tijlan wrote:
>> What would be the difference from {cu'u}?
>
> "cu'u" is used to attribute a quotation to someone; see my sig.

That may be a common use, but there's more to cusku than text
quotation. I think it's not unreasonable for a bridi to be tagged by
"cu'u da" if there's the fact of X having expressed whatever the bridi
represents in whatever form, and the bridi doesn't have to be the
exact quotation of X's (textual) expression.


> "xu'a" would
> be used to attribute an assertion to someone. You could repeat his assertion
> without getting anywhere near his words, and attribute it to him with "xu'a".
> Conversely, someone could say something which is not an assertion, and you
> attribute it to him with "cu'u".

Assuming that an assertion is a type of expression, there may be
attributions which "cu'u" and not "xu'a" can make, but no attribution
which "xu'a" and not "cu'u" can make. The difference would be
vagueness. From my perspective, we can already use "cu'u da" for
"according to X", but this doesn't specify the nature of X's
expression -- it doesn't specify X as an assertor. I wouldn't mind
adding "xu'a" to our BAI list, but I wonder if there are frequent
enough situations which necessitate such a specification.

I agree about the use of "cu'u" for a non-assertion, but "according
to" itself doesn't always take an assertion:

According to my sister, this doesn't taste good.
(She doesn't assert it doesn't taste good, she just frowns and spits it out.)

According to my weather forecast app, it's going to rain.
(The app doesn't assert it's going to rain, it just shows a picture of
raining clouds.)

According to the stars, we're heading south.
(The stars don't assert we're heading south, they are just in a
certain orientation.)


>> Also, note that the definition of {xusra} says "can be used for
>> epistemology of authority". Epistemology. That's djuno4. I
>> occasionally use {vedu'o} for "according to".
>
> I would use "vedu'o" for the method of reasoning that results in knowledge,
> rather than the person who says something is true.

I was thinking along the lines of "according to his
view/logic/interpretation/assertion", the way in which information is
organized (i.e. epistemological), not a person.

I agree that "du'o" wouldn't work if the person doesn't know it for
certain as in some cases of "according to". I just wanted to point out
that the x1 may not be the only place of "djuno" which can be used to
mean "according to".


> I've met people who appear
> to believe that the earth is both six thousand years old and over a billion
> years old; the velju'o is different. Me, if I try to interpret the beginning of
> Genesis as that God created all the stars in one 24-hour day, and a few days
> later created man, the interpretation falls apart immediately: in what
> reference frame are they all created in one day?
> I don't disbelieve in the
> Garden of Eden because science does not assert its existence, but applying the
> same velju'o, I conclude that the Garden of Eden was in Africa and someone
> named the Mesopotamian rivers after old names of African ones. If I understand
> "ve djuno" right.

I don't see the point you are trying to make beyond the fact that the
"six thousand years old" belief & the "over a billion years old"
belief have different velju'o. I don't see how the latter is involved
in the interpretation of the one-day creation story and in the
conclusion about the Garden of Eden.


mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.