Received: from mail-lb0-f189.google.com ([209.85.217.189]:32853) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XapKQ-00064c-GL for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 10:10:46 -0700 Received: by mail-lb0-f189.google.com with SMTP id z11sf334917lbi.16 for ; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 10:10:30 -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=Bis2Y26HBSAhbQT0zP0gR+J1bOLMKRghglLLY5VMe8Q=; b=kI0g5MlVfUingBGOPM3X2g63Y47jCELdbGA5erJ4C+uKVfw97d7EX90ygDWhjyGiXW WKXDk5FLwWfmNogQcMlm4kmidefRH/ZpGeuz86BhsriXV2SMeUafWJpDw8ZkdcnTyBDe TrNDS7H844ETyfFpe5fQt5RWEgkQfwnz1cr+6ztxYn+qA2EK+7mtHSTQcgdAQccM2snY 662kvky7buD+bESQbpS7EwnpfvFuF/NWj5uQLL5EjSfle6Wjq0xqDjzJxSfoNYBy4QS9 99Gy7goFNCI1TZUQA7GPtNC3FVA+VfaMQooxUuBx9xuqRY6LLgNrqbnY+socvYpWz8th 7d8A== X-Received: by 10.152.36.193 with SMTP id s1mr282461laj.0.1412529030844; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 10:10:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.5.201 with SMTP id u9ls512154lau.107.gmail; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.168.225 with SMTP id zz1mr503614lbb.8.1412529029511; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rb5si1128896lbb.0.2014.10.05.10.10.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 05 Oct 2014 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::229; Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 10so3168872lbg.14 for ; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.14.199 with SMTP id r7mr18773657lbc.58.1412529029413; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.25.229 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> References: <20140927195841.GT28734@gonzales> <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales> <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 14:10:29 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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=001a11332fee08820c0504b00b31 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11332fee08820c0504b00b31 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Saturday, 2014-10-04 at 13:07 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas < > jjllambias@gmail.com>: > > Does it unwrap "li mo'e lo broda" in any way? > > Only in that it parses the sumti, yielding > broda(c0); [Fragment: [c0]] > cy no broda .i li mo'e cy no te'u lo'o > Shouldn't "li mo'e cy no te'u lo'o" reduce to "cy no"? I guess "li mo'e sumti-6 te'u lo'o" has to be equivalent to "sumti-6", but I don't know what happens when a quantifier or a logical connective gets involved. Maybe "li mo'e ci ko'a" =3D "lo ci ko'a", and "li mo'e ko'a .e ko'e" =3D "ko'a jo'u k= o'e". > > > > Hmm. I've been adopting {lo broda} =3D=3D {zo'e noi broda} as absol= ute > > > > > dogma, so it's really making a side-claim that the referent(s) > > > > > broda(s). You think a more accurate dogma would be > > > > > {lo broda} =3D=3D {zo'e noi ca'e broda}? > > > > No, I was thinking of "ca'e" as defining the new auxiliary variable= s > > > > introduced by the parsing. > > > I wouldn't say it's a definition exactly. That it brodas need not be > > > enough to pick the referent out uniquely, so I don't see that we can > > > take it as a definition. > > > > I think it should be enough "in context". > > Uhoh. > > So if there are five contextually relevant apples, you would never > understand {lo plise goi ko'a} to be referring to just one of them? > How would I know which one? I may perhaps understand it as referring to them as if they were one, i.e. I could abstract away the different instances of Apple as I can abstract away the temporal dimension and consider all the different temporal instances as one, in cases where the different positions that Apple is taking are not relevant. No description will ever be enough to pick the referent out uniquely in an absolute sense. The universe of discourse is not something that we have as a given, it's something that we have to construct and negotiate as the discourse proceeds. If you tell me that we already know for sure that the universe of discourse contains five things that satisfy "plise", then I would say that "lo pise" can only be "lo mu plise". How about if, perhaps much later in the discourse, I clarified by saying > {ko'a pamei lo plise mumei}? > Then I guess "ko'a goi lo pa lo mu plise" would have been the way to assign one of them to "ko'a". The listener would still not be able to know which one if there are no additional clues as to which one the speaker means, so they would have to ask for more precision. > I would say that whatever claim there is in "lo broda" has the same kind > of > > illocutionary force that a claim hidden in "ta", "mi", "do", "ko'a", et= c. > > This is about presuppositions, isn't it? > > So {broda lo brode} -> > Presupposition: brode(c) > broda(,c) > > (This is ignoring for now what you mention above about the > brode(_) having to determine c.) > I think so, yes. Having a fully accurate way to render that in lojban, in the sense of > finding an utterance with that form but equivalent meaning to the > original, is probably too much to hope for (I don't think it's possible > in english, for example). > I agree, presuppositions are by definition not stated explicitly. If they are included as part of the discourse, they are no longer presuppositions. But I see that treating the presupposition as an editorial insertion *by > the translator* would make some sense. So although {sa'a cy brode .i > broda cy} would be a very odd thing to actually say, it could make sense > as a description of what a speaker means by {broda lo brode}. I guess > this is what you meant? > Something like that, yes. This does seem to be leading us to assigning subtly different meanings > to {lo broda} and {lo du noi broda}. Is that acceptable? I don't see any other way. Maybe it's not always that important to distinguish a presupposition from a side comment, but if there is a distinction, then they wouldn't be identical. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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. --001a11332fee08820c0504b00b31 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:
* Saturday, 2014-10-04 at 13:07 -0300 - Jorge Llam= b=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com<= /a>>:
> Does it unwrap "li mo'e lo broda= " in any way?

Only in that it parses the sumti, yielding
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 broda(c0); [Fragment: [c0]]
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 cy no broda .i li mo'e cy no te'u lo'o

Shouldn't "li mo'e cy no te'u lo= 'o" reduce to "cy no"? I guess "li mo'e sumti-6= te'u lo'o" has to be equivalent to "sumti-6", but I= don't know what happens when a quantifier or a logical connective gets= involved. Maybe "li mo'e ci ko'a" =3D "lo ci ko'= ;a", and "li mo'e ko'a .e ko'e" =3D "ko'= ;a jo'u ko'e".

> > > > Hmm. I've been adopting {lo broda} =3D=3D {z= o'e noi broda} as absolute
> > > > dogma, so it's really making a side-claim that the = referent(s)
> > > > broda(s). You think a more accurate dogma would be
> > > > {lo broda} =3D=3D {zo'e noi ca'e broda}?
> > > No, I was thinking of "ca'e" as defining the n= ew auxiliary variables
> > > introduced by the parsing.
> > I wouldn't say it's a definition exactly. That it brodas = need not be
> > enough to pick the referent out uniquely, so I don't see that= we can
> > take it as a definition.
>
> I think it should be enough "in context".

Uhoh.

So if there are five contextually relevant apples, you would never
understand {lo plise goi ko'a} to be referring to just one of them?
=

How would I know which one?=C2=A0



How about if, perhaps much later in the discourse, I clarified by saying {ko'a pamei lo plise mumei}?

Then I= guess "ko'a goi lo pa lo mu plise" would have been the way t= o assign one of them to "ko'a". The listener would still not = be able to know which one if there are no additional clues as to which one = the speaker means, so they would have to ask for more precision.
=

> I would say that whatever claim there is in "lo broda" has t= he same kind of
> illocutionary force that a claim hidden in "ta", "mi&qu= ot;, "do", "ko'a", etc.

This is about presuppositions, isn't it?

So {broda lo brode} ->
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Presupposition: brode(c)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 broda(,c)

(This is ignoring for now what you mention above about the
brode(_) having to determine c.)

I thin= k so, yes.=C2=A0

Having a fully accurate way to render that in lojban, in the sense of
finding an utterance with that form but equivalent meaning to the
original, is probably too much to hope for (I don't think it's poss= ible
in english, for example).

I agree, pres= uppositions are by definition not stated explicitly. If they are included a= s part of the discourse, they are no longer presuppositions.=C2=A0

But I see that treating the presupposition as an editorial insertion *by the translator* would make some sense. So although {sa'a cy brode .i broda cy} would be a very odd thing to actually say, it could make sense as a description of what a speaker means by {broda lo brode}. I guess
this is what you meant?


This does seem to be leading us to assigning subtly different meanings
to {lo broda} and {lo du noi broda}. Is that acceptable?

--
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.
--001a11332fee08820c0504b00b31--