Received: from mail-wg0-f62.google.com ([74.125.82.62]:58465) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XcYDP-00075a-KA for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:18:36 -0700 Received: by mail-wg0-f62.google.com with SMTP id x12sf324327wgg.27 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:18:24 -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=dPsbmkGuk5RlS6q9Ph8LiMO/ko33UzhpSUzfV5OLXI8=; b=nqtLJmeTUqj1OYFwcaB3y/qMeQjUGCajtW+ITSAJKynZmS2CvzAFAOFq41fqId/nt/ SUQFGZ2focJcQWHud5FylQziLJk4qMYRgLci8VwzK4OPgcjyelIXVM6Bkpk+bodTp6wl aiQIeZkC/KoU+VtMHOcsX/ZFCFXyM2d09p1/hzBINWhaPqbktoJKxuVyRcdPyKPT5wnw 5781F2sQ35PxwmceGj915xFkg4eePeU3ft7s6MVZ7xrv+bU9fmT8Dc/JgIL9DOI0FNY0 SLxGxAE++8+p5lP7Tw/ySgyJM1GEmFP2XxNKr5/fxs7EhDP3LVRPUGQB0UY0YnC0LJVh x+dQ== X-Received: by 10.180.76.70 with SMTP id i6mr31547wiw.0.1412939904595; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:18:24 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.219.103 with SMTP id pn7ls115013wic.18.gmail; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:18:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.79.101 with SMTP id i5mr914735wix.5.1412939904061; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hv5si143099wib.1.2014.10.10.04.18.24 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f; Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x13so3594967wgg.6 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:18:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.134.201 with SMTP id pm9mr1891654wjb.130.1412939903975; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([95.147.226.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bv17sm2281610wib.13.2014.10.10.04.18.22 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5437C084.7060006@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:18:28 +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> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales>

<5433F201.2020902@gmail.com> <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com> <54364234.2020906@gmail.com> <54371623.8090608@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:c00::22f 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 10/10/2014 01:49: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM, And Rosta > 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. Referential= ity 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. To insist that "(bridi)" express the same proposition when bare and when in= "operator (bridi)" is to insist that the syntax/logical form of bridi must= be determined solely by their morphophonological structure and not rules, = such as scope-leaping, that allow (carefully regulated) mismatches. Such an= insistence fosters simplicity of rules, but is not very utilitarian. Lojba= n already has mismatches for sure, e.g. "(na ku zo'u) ma broda". Take the present case as an example. Suppose you want to say "zo'e ge broda= gi poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u ke'a brodu". By the candidate rules I'm counterp= osing to yours, that could simply be rendered as the morphophonologically s= impler "mi jinvi lo du'u lo broda cu brodu". > I have always interpreted "noi" as introducing a clause with > independent illocutionary force, yes. I had begun to formulate a response discussion the pros and cons of this fr= om a design perspective, considering its utility, its systemic relationship= with other relative phrases, and so forth, but I gave up at the methodolog= ical madness of inventing a language by starting with a fixed set of very v= aguely defined function words and then trying to decide precisely what they= 'do mean' or 'should mean'. Instead I will content myself with simply esta= blishing what you think things should mean. > By my thinking, (1) consists of an illocutionary operator "I hereby a= sk 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 whe= re 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? No, I wouldn't agree. I think it only asks a question and doesn't describe = the asking of a question, and that is of course therefore why I think that = the asking of a question, rather than only the description of the asking of= a question, can be argument of a predicate. > 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. In "use it for both things at the same time", what is "it"? As I understand= it, I'm saying that the logical form for the sentence contains only the il= locution "I hereby ask whether", while you are saying it contains both the = illocution and a separate referential description of the illocution. But in= that case, there is nothing that is being used for both things at the same= time. --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.