Received: from mail-la0-f55.google.com ([209.85.215.55]:37779) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XcLtM-0002wH-Vm for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:09:08 -0700 Received: by mail-la0-f55.google.com with SMTP id hz20sf207260lab.0 for ; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:08:53 -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=qmVOojeKdtYKcr893M3Y6gVqciEtsB5smkbQ93+V2L4=; b=Y8m68Qfl5nRdv8TASU7/Ndw2IAw1FuEHAvNHC7cixVXv/ymQkoRTRhL1KjEawv4nc/ 55evhB6fjtrEiif/Bem7P3tkT8jIMwza+vR+CZr8mPMBaqGCvAV54qF/diKPcEc20z2D gawYbLC86g+Y2ayW2fJuvRmzLHAfdhJDzdre4rLh2A9OVebOF3TdKCkTIN0KyUWbjVHn ffCkx9JXhhE5XSPBaZgAlFb0PDQTj3Np3GZoqY3+cZcZY4WoF1YjDV4j7SAs5mKBQ2Pj D5AtUX1nDMUpgVDG8ODa7flvaJpyX+JxqE1DnhqxGCAFiDHDgkBr9M14kUBdUqBqrWiL kyJA== X-Received: by 10.152.6.100 with SMTP id z4mr5316laz.9.1412892533629; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:08:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.36.38 with SMTP id n6ls208451laj.86.gmail; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.140.199 with SMTP id ri7mr4492lbb.17.1412892532629; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22e.google.com (mail-lb0-x22e.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id us10si34048lbc.1.2014.10.09.15.08.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e; Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id p9so2048608lbv.33 for ; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.22.200 with SMTP id g8mr454820laf.1.1412892532519; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.61.176 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <54364234.2020906@gmail.com> References: <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales> <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> <5433F201.2020902@gmail.com> <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com> <54364234.2020906@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 19:08:52 -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::22e 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=089e0158c31a81ba37050504adf4 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --089e0158c31a81ba37050504adf4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:07 AM, And Rosta wrote: > Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 08/10/2014 23:40: > >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:40 AM, And Rosta > and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 07/10/2014 21:59: >> I do think the nonpresuppositional version fails >> to capture what I take "lo" to mean by introducing a claim that is >> not there. >> > > But, to repeat my question, why is it that you take this to be the meanin= g > of "lo"? I'm seeking to understand your reasoning (not to challenge it or > disagree with it). Why don't I take it to make a claim? Because I don't think referring expressions are meant to make claims. I don't know how else to say it. Far better to introduce an experimental cmavo for presupposition than >> to put about an incorrect paraphrase. >> >> It would be a cmavo with very limited use though, mostly just in >> linguistic discussions rather than ordinary discourse. Maybe it can >> be covered with a sei-clause, once we figure out exacly how these >> clauses work. >> > > At least don't use "zo'e noi ke'a broda" as a definitional paraphrase > (unless "noi" gets redefined as presuppositional). It's the best we have come up with so far, and it works for many purposes. If something better comes along, I'll be glad to adopt it. > I think the sentence "zo'e noi broda cu brodu" and the sentence "zo'e >> ge broda gi brodu" don't express the same proposition, because the >> result of negating each of them results in sentences that express >> different propositions. >> > > Which of these do you mean; > (1) Because the negated versions express different propositions, we shoul= d > make it be the case that the noi and ge sentences express different > propositions. > (2) Because the negated versions express different propositions, it > follows logically/rationally that the noi and ge sentences express > different propositions. > (2), I think. > If (1), I don't follow the reasoning. If (2), I think the reasoning is > incorrect. It is perfectly possible for -- due to the workings of whateve= r > rules translate morphophonological forms into logical forms -- the > unnegated sentences to express the same proposition and the negated > sentences to express different ones, and indeed that is actually my curre= nt > understanding of them. I recognize that if -- contrary to what I have bee= n > supposing -- noi has the meaning of English nonrestrictive relatives, the= n > the unnegated versions do express different propositions (where > 'propositions' include illocutionary operators and not just their > propositional content). I don't see noi as very different from English nonrestrictive relatives. My point is that: (a) the sentence "zo'e ge broda gi brodu" expresses a single proposition, and in the absence of any explicit illocutionary operator it is used to assert that proposition. (b) the sentence "zo'e noi broda cu brodu" expresses two separate propositions (not the single proposition that results from their conjunction). When using it without explicit illocutionary operators, one of the propositions is asserted normally as in (a), and the other proposition is... I don't know exactly, side-asserted? btw-asserted? In any case it is not a part of the main assertion. This side-assertion is closer to, and more easily identifiable with, a presupposition than the main assertion is. This reminds me that, if I recall correctly, we had different views >> when working on Xorban on whether it makes sense for two sentences >> with different illocutionary force to be logically connected. For me >> logical connection only applies to bare propositions, and not to >> propositions-in-use. >> > > My palpably deteriorating memory isn't pinging, so even if you recall > correctly, I still don't. I do think that illocutionary operators can > themselves be arguments of predicates (e.g. "Is it dinner time yet, for I= 'm > hungry") tho, and since I take logical connectives to be predicates it > follows that in principle I must allow illocutionary operators to be > logically connected. I'm not sure how this bears on the current discussio= n, > tho. Yes, that was a good example. My view was that the underlying logic for that is: 1: I (hereby) ask whether it is dinner time yet. 2. The reason for my asking whether it is dinner time yet is that I am hungry. 1 and 2 are different propositions, but 2 happens to contain 1. Since both illocutionary acts make use of the same proposition, it is convenient to utter the sentence expressing that proposition only once, but that doesn't make the first illocutionary act (as opposed to just its propositional content) an argument of the predicate used in the second act. 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. --089e0158c31a81ba37050504adf4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:07 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 08/1= 0/2014 23:40:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:40 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>= ; wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 07/10/2014 21:59:
 I do think the nonpresuppositional version fails
to capture what I take "lo" to mean by introducing a claim that i= s
not there.

But, to repeat my question, why is it that you take this to be the meaning = of "lo"? I'm seeking to understand your reasoning (not to cha= llenge it or disagree with it).

Why don'= ;t I take it to make a claim? Because I don't think referring expressio= ns are meant to make claims. I don't know how else to say it.=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Far better to introduce an experimental cmavo for presupposit= ion than to put about an incorrect paraphrase.

It would be a cmavo with very limited use though, mostly just in
linguistic discussions rather than ordinary discourse. Maybe it can
be covered with a sei-clause, once we figure out exacly how these
clauses work.

At least don't use "zo'e noi ke'a broda" as a definit= ional paraphrase (unless "noi" gets redefined as presuppositional= ).

It's the best we have come up with s= o far, and it works for many purposes. If something better comes along, I&#= 39;ll be glad to adopt it.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
I think the sentence "zo'e noi broda cu brodu" and the senten= ce "zo'e
ge broda gi brodu" don't express the same proposition, because the=
result of negating each of them results in sentences that express
different propositions.

 Which of these do you mean;
(1) Because the negated versions express different propositions, we should = make it be the case that the noi and ge sentences express different proposi= tions.
(2) Because the negated versions express different propositions, it follows= logically/rationally that the noi and ge sentences express different propo= sitions.

(2), I think.
=C2=A0=
If (1), I don't follow the reasoning. If (2), I think the reasoning is = incorrect. It is perfectly possible for -- due to the workings of whatever = rules translate morphophonological forms into logical forms -- the unnegate= d sentences to express the same proposition and the negated sentences to ex= press different ones, and indeed that is actually my current understanding = of them. I recognize that if -- contrary to what I have been supposing -- n= oi has the meaning of English nonrestrictive relatives, then the unnegated = versions do express different propositions (where 'propositions' in= clude illocutionary operators and not just their propositional content).

I don't see noi as very different from En= glish nonrestrictive relatives.

My point is that: = =C2=A0
(a) the sentence "zo'e ge broda gi brodu" ex= presses a single proposition, and in the absence of any explicit illocution= ary operator it is used to assert that proposition.
(b) the sente= nce "zo'e noi broda cu brodu" expresses two separate proposit= ions (not the single proposition that results from their conjunction). When= using it without explicit illocutionary operators, one of the propositions= is asserted normally as in (a), and the other proposition is... I don'= t know exactly, side-asserted? btw-asserted? In any case it is not a part o= f the main assertion. This side-assertion is closer to, and more easily ide= ntifiable with, a presupposition than the main assertion is.

=
This reminds me that, if I recall correctly, we had different views
when working on Xorban on whether it makes sense for two sentences
with different illocutionary force to be logically connected. For me
logical connection only applies to bare propositions, and not to
propositions-in-use.

 My palpably deteriorating memory isn't pinging, so even if you recall c= orrectly, I still don't. I do think that illocutionary operators can th= emselves be arguments of predicates (e.g. "Is it dinner time yet, for = I'm hungry") tho, and since I take logical connectives to be predi= cates it follows that in principle I must allow illocutionary operators to = be logically connected. I'm not sure how this bears on the current disc= ussion, tho.

Yes, that was a good example. = My view was that the underlying logic for that is:

1: I (hereby) ask whether it is dinner time yet.
2. The reason f= or my asking whether it is dinner time yet is that I am hungry.
<= br>
1 and 2 are different propositions, but 2 happens to contain = 1. Since both illocutionary acts make use of the same proposition, it is co= nvenient to utter the sentence expressing that proposition only once, but t= hat doesn't make the first illocutionary act (as opposed to just its pr= opositional content) an argument of the predicate used in the second act.= =C2=A0

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.
--089e0158c31a81ba37050504adf4--