Received: from mail-ee0-f63.google.com ([74.125.83.63]:51788) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XcMrv-0003XU-L4 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:11:42 -0700 Received: by mail-ee0-f63.google.com with SMTP id d17sf214157eek.8 for ; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:11:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xrdab1yfy0Xw1GHrx16MRWcMx7gxVFBHBAs+69sWc9s=; b=NCtVaLD8pMPu86783x1Ng6Dui0KSg9LDiKiJGR5nlfpqiP4wlGI0JrDzMzdC69xbIU wGsCOvH7w7WyJEHS8iIyMWHzzyn+uZFyUJI6DlHR/RY75rTdg3Zyim+IjVjzN7Hco7pt DHps8TWfFAFts6/B/op/DqValKVpazigspdU2Gb9VuhA+cWR8sYSUoc54HfSHoKfHx5J DVUQnVYtnvpnn2P3CFxxwYZlmJUnfeDXQoGA97SXQ2tgdI+QbwYDWrZp88v+3Mzp6oCl b/QAA07i7gkgPy0EFB+AIIC9ZsE5Ar3n5A4eKfiNteNP1VOx7NdxD0Sgp42MVKNNqusi rfiw== X-Received: by 10.152.36.71 with SMTP id o7mr5578laj.29.1412896288732; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:11:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.42.171 with SMTP id p11ls188989lal.68.gmail; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:11:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.37.229 with SMTP id b5mr8532lak.9.1412896287441; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ca20si31789wib.3.2014.10.09.16.11.27 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c; Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n3so386453wiv.17 for ; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:11:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.95.234 with SMTP id dn10mr587153wjb.73.1412896287331; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([95.147.226.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cz3sm5063889wjb.23.2014.10.09.16.11.26 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54371623.8090608@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:11:31 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 References: <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales>

<5433F201.2020902@gmail.com> <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com> <54364234.2020906@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: 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 2a00:1450:400c:c05::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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 09/10/2014 23:08: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:07 AM, And Rosta > wrote: > > Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 08/10/2014 23:40: > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:40 AM, And Rosta >> wrote: > Jorge Llamb=EDas, 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 me= aning of "lo"? I'm seeking to understand your reasoning (not to challenge i= t 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. Okay, but you must see that in principle it's perfectly possible for "lo" t= o be referential yet for "broda" to be part of the claim. Referentiality do= esn't entail the description not being claimed. > 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 th= e > 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 s= hould make it be the case that the noi and ge sentences express different p= ropositions. > (2) Because the negated versions express different propositions, it f= ollows 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 i= s incorrect. It is perfectly possible for -- due to the workings of whateve= r rules translate morphophonological forms into logical forms -- the unnega= ted sentences to express the same proposition and the negated sentences to = express different ones, and indeed that is actually my current understandin= g of them. I recognize that if -- contrary to what I have been supposing --= noi has the meaning of English nonrestrictive relatives, then the unnegate= d 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. In English, nonrestrictive relatives have independent assertive force, whic= h is preserved even if the relative is within, say, a question or a command= . If you think Lojban "noi" works that way, then I accept your reasoning, m= erely noting that there are other viable candidate meanings for "noi" (such= as the one I had been thinking it had) that would invalidate your reasonin= g. (It's possible to have nonrestrictiveness without the independent illocu= tionary force, and I had supposed that in the absence of any specification = of independent illocutionary force, noi is merely nonrestrictive.) > This reminds me that, if I recall correctly, we had different vie= ws > when working on Xorban on whether it makes sense for two sentence= s > 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 them= selves be arguments of predicates (e.g. "Is it dinner time yet, for I'm hun= gry") tho, and since I take logical connectives to be predicates it follows= that in principle I must allow illocutionary operators to be logically con= nected. I'm not sure how this bears on the current discussion, tho. > > Yes, that was a good example. My view was that the underlying logic for t= hat 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 hu= ngry. I (hereby) state that the reason for my asking whether it is dinner time ye= t 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. By my thinking, (1) consists of an illocutionary operator "I hereby ask wh"= , with 'propositional content' "it is dinner time yet". So if (2) is "the r= eason for X is that I am hungry", X is not the propositional content of (1)= but rather is (1) itself, i.e. the illocution. Can you reexplain where exa= ctly you differ? --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.