Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::235;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54371623.8090608@gmail.com>
References: <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2ds0RxZnHoUSodwty5hjWk+6hpKPj_Y8NoVy+paOc44sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2eST7Fj3qQa2DKrmfPP8pYQPToCQL7x7v8xWUqAn5FARQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2fS_pTD3snnSeQ4meDbrBhS_v8RCJvPvbEuLjXDhx-Drw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2f_GVeDL5Qukx1k+3wTg5aVcY+z4W6JjB=hF1JGHzwwAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2fdDnOG5OSU5wJ=MQaDMroy3Ht45WjkMnCKBG1o9ofUTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACf3dPn1uunMicCRD8OgqVxLMSRpjMTjS-kB1Mrk3XMGZCkYcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2c62t+Q42aEoH16KTfviM527==ZyRboFdp0MbP=E4P6xA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5433F201.2020902@gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2cx8jR+6qh82X7ZSPzQ3doNcvF54s6YLUARMYcXqT090g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2ed4RwuWX6C2TragFDE=eqC-7DKY2AC8bMBfDZyHceC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<54364234.2020906@gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2ch+_ppfXPEJqyu_Xa8N7tbcGtnx+Lk3_+jqhFOEw3CUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54371623.8090608@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 21:49:17 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2fbXCiKhefYoZSXfUT-RU83MrJZ9L62QO8fZQdvgBss8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11349fcc3530d1050506ebbb
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a11349fcc3530d1050506ebbb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Okay, but you must see that in principle it's perfectly possible for "lo"
> to be referential yet for "broda" to be part of the claim. Referentiality
> doesn't entail the description not being claimed.


Yes, I agree it's not a logical impossibility. But making "na ku zo'u
(bridi)" not always express the negation of the proposition that "(bridi)"
expresses makes the rules for the "na ku zo'u" operator much more
complicated than they need to be.

In English, nonrestrictive relatives have independent assertive force,
> which 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, merely noting that there are other viable candidate meanings for
> "noi" (such as the one I had been thinking it had) that would invalidate
> your reasoning. (It's possible to have nonrestrictiveness without the
> independent illocutionary force, and I had supposed that in the absence of
> any specification of independent illocutionary force, noi is merely
> nonrestrictive.)


I have always interpreted "noi" as introducing a clause with independent
illocutionary force, yes.


> 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.
>>
>
> I (hereby) state that the reason for my asking whether it is dinner time
> yet is that I am hungry.


Yes, that's a better expansion of the second illocutionary 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 reason 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 exactly you differ?


Would you agree that "I ask whether it is dinner time yet" is being used in
two different ways, in one case to ask a question and in the other case to
describe the asking of a question? When it is used to refer to the asking
of a question, it is an argument of "... is the reason for ...", but when
used to ask a question, it is not. It just happens that we can conveniently
use it for both things at the same time.

I think "I hereby ask ..." can be used as an illocutionary operator, but it
can also be used as an ordinary predicate, which I think is what happens in
2.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--001a11349fcc3530d1050506ebbb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM, And Rosta <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">and.rosta@gmail.com</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Okay, but you must see that in principle it&#39;s perfectly possible for &q=
uot;lo&quot; to be referential yet for &quot;broda&quot; to be part of the =
claim. Referentiality doesn&#39;t entail the description not being claimed.=
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I agree it&#39;s not a logical imposs=
ibility. But making &quot;na ku zo&#39;u (bridi)&quot; not always express t=
he negation of the proposition that &quot;(bridi)&quot; expresses makes the=
 rules for the &quot;na ku zo&#39;u&quot; operator much more complicated th=
an they need to be.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">In E=
nglish, nonrestrictive relatives have independent assertive force, which is=
 preserved even if the relative is within, say, a question or a command. If=
 you think Lojban &quot;noi&quot; works that way, then I accept your reason=
ing, merely noting that there are other viable candidate meanings for &quot=
;noi&quot; (such as the one I had been thinking it had) that would invalida=
te your reasoning. (It&#39;s possible to have nonrestrictiveness without th=
e independent illocutionary force, and I had supposed that in the absence o=
f any specification of independent illocutionary force, noi is merely nonre=
strictive.)</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have always interpreted &quot=
;noi&quot; as introducing a clause with independent illocutionary force, ye=
s.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
"><span class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">1: I (hereby) ask whether=
 it is dinner time yet.<br>
2. The reason for my asking whether it is dinner time yet is that I am hung=
ry.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
I (hereby) state that the reason for my asking whether it is dinner time ye=
t is that I am hungry.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, that&#39;s a be=
tter expansion of the second illocutionary act.=C2=A0</div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockq=
uote></span>
By my thinking, (1) consists of an illocutionary operator &quot;I hereby as=
k wh&quot;, with &#39;propositional content&#39; &quot;it is dinner time ye=
t&quot;. So if (2) is &quot;the reason for X is that I am hungry&quot;, X i=
s not the propositional content of (1) but rather is (1) itself, i.e. the i=
llocution. Can you reexplain where exactly you differ?</blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>Would you agree that &quot;I ask whether it is dinner time yet&=
quot; is being used in two different ways, in one case to ask a question an=
d in the other case to describe the asking of a question? When it is used t=
o refer to the asking of a question, it is an argument of &quot;... is the =
reason for ...&quot;, but when used to ask a question, it is not. It just h=
appens that we can conveniently use it for both things at the same time.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>I think &quot;I hereby ask ...&quot; can be used as =
an illocutionary operator, but it can also be used as an ordinary predicate=
, which I think is what happens in 2.</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&=
#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--001a11349fcc3530d1050506ebbb--