Received: from mail-pd0-f186.google.com ([209.85.192.186]:56119) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XYIhf-00048h-Q1 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:56:16 -0700 Received: by mail-pd0-f186.google.com with SMTP id ft15sf30432pdb.13 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:56:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=HWwURaoOrfKaWh9IAaaKZ81y2z3enFnYz+kqOIEZchc=; b=aDJTctGpg4mTGQmFmu1HcbaPRe79l+HMbj3/vVGL8EpBbLj12wxT5wErOnU1gZ9kY5 HH02fVwucCkNrmxlQGgDY8uAMSS3HEdqGJwpCBRv8yKKfhAAVf8GlnJfLZ1QygoCN9r/ CN/G+gWh49pZTq5QLdnGrikOOsxwyUSK1MZwKdOsGD6ouKvbPj62h7/Dvwbl2XLqaPJ2 IbRp3LwiDqhXaNcSYebQM+jbtHbyBP/V+PYzqpxl/qIQtf+Fk6CcPhOUtXOarPL1JuTj LO6zPEo1D07HT87otRXkeFOzqec3pacus2SxtYL6yscDpjfmtbnVcSzYCwLKXcPngDri ogKg== X-Received: by 10.140.30.246 with SMTP id d109mr617qgd.7.1411926965397; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:56:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.81.147 with SMTP id f19ls1749934qgd.24.gmail; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.176.170 with SMTP id cj10mr29504328vdc.7.1411926964795; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com [2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l7si659547pdn.0.2014.09.28.10.56.04 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c; Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id et14so1276675pad.31 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.201.230 with SMTP id kd6mr54067058pbc.74.1411926964604; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.37.198 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.37.198 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:56:04 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni} From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb208bc2c95c6050423dd7e X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --e89a8fb208bc2c95c6050423dd7e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 28 Sep 2014 17:00, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > > 2014-09-28 19:33 GMT+04:00 And Rosta : >> >> >> On 28 Sep 2014 01:43, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" wrote= : >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM, And Rosta wrote= : >> >> >> >> On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" wr= ote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo", or something else to do with specificity? >> >> >> >> The specificity comes from the {co'e}. >> > >> > Even if "co'e" is some specific predicate that the speaker has in mind, I don't think "lo co'e" has to have specific referents, since any predicate could have non specific referents. >> >> I don't know what having "nonspecific referents" is. If a specific referent is one underdetermined by the description, is a nonspecific one one that is fully determined by the description, e.g. a generic? >> >> > Maybe "co'e" is meant to stand for the predicate "x1 is/are certain x2". >> >> "x1 is a certain thing" would do as a gloss. >> >> >> I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully? >> > >> > I don't think it has seen much use at all. I'm sure the irci boys will soon find a better use for it since they seem to be re-purposing all those wasted one syllable cmavo like "tau", "lau" and such. >> >> I would go for du'u, ke'a, ce'u, zo'u, zo'e, co'e, poi'i (which I'm amazed to see lives), su'o(i), mu'ei to be monosyllabic. Do the irci boys have a list of ideas? > > I disagree on using mu'ei. Has anyone expaliend what {PAmu'ei PAnu broda} means when the two PA are different? The sumti complement of mu'ei should be {lo du'u}, so {PAmu'ei PAnu broda} is gobbledygook, regardless of whether the PA are different. It is regrettable that there is no single cmavo that converts a bridi into a sumti; that's what's needed here. {mu'ei} isn't perfect, because it lacks a way to extend it to different modalities (epistemic, deontic, etc.). (Another problem is that it suffers from Lojban's lack of a decent way to do donkey sentences, e.g. "mostly, every farmer who owns a donkey beats it".) > I prefer the new system that can easily turn from possible worlds to real world: http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=3DELG._Subjunctives,_imaginary_situati= ons I haven't seen that page before, but I think it's largely garbage, I'm afraid. Does that page have support among logicolinguistically savvy lojbanists? If so, then maybe I'll try to find the time to denounce it. --And. --=20 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 e= mail 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --e89a8fb208bc2c95c6050423dd7e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 28 Sep 2014 17:00, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014-09-28 19:33 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2014 01:43, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" <= ;jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote= :
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo&quo= t;, or something else to do with specificity?
>> >>
>> >> The specificity comes from the {co'e}.
>> >
>> > Even if "co'e" is some specific predicate that = the speaker has in mind, I don't think "lo co'e" has to h= ave specific referents, since any predicate could have non specific referen= ts.
>>
>> I don't know what having "nonspecific referents" is.= If a specific referent is one underdetermined by the description, is a non= specific one one that is fully determined by the description, e.g. a generi= c?
>>
>> > Maybe "co'e" is meant to stand for the predicat= e "x1 is/are certain x2".=C2=A0
>>
>> "x1 is a certain thing" would do as a gloss.
>>
>> >> I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} = is {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridica= l {noi} (I haven't found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbo= vlaste, but I may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself = seems utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully? >> >
>> > I don't think it has seen much use at all. I'm sure t= he irci boys will soon find a better use for it since they seem to be re-pu= rposing all those wasted one syllable cmavo like "tau", "lau= " and such.
>>
>> I would go for du'u, ke'a, ce'u, zo'u, zo'e, c= o'e, poi'i (which I'm amazed to see lives), su'o(i), mu'= ;ei to be monosyllabic. Do the irci boys have a list of ideas?
>
> I disagree on using mu'ei. Has anyone expaliend what {PAmu'ei = PAnu broda} means when the two PA are different?

The sumti complement of mu'ei should be {lo du'u}, s= o {PAmu'ei PAnu broda} is gobbledygook, regardless of whether the PA ar= e different. It is regrettable that there is no single cmavo that converts = a bridi into a sumti; that's what's needed here.

{mu'ei} isn't perfect, because it lacks a way to ext= end it to different modalities (epistemic, deontic, etc.). (Another problem= is that it suffers from Lojban's lack of a decent way to do donkey sen= tences, e.g. "mostly, every farmer who owns a donkey beats it".)<= /p>

> I prefer the new system that can easily turn from possi= ble worlds to real world:=C2=A0http://mw.lojban.org/index.p= hp?title=3DELG._Subjunctives,_imaginary_situations

I haven't seen that page before, but I think it's la= rgely garbage, I'm afraid. Does that page have support among logicoling= uistically savvy lojbanists? If so, then maybe I'll try to find the tim= e to denounce it.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http:= //groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--e89a8fb208bc2c95c6050423dd7e--