Received: from mail-la0-f56.google.com ([209.85.215.56]:39086) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XchIE-0005HG-5Z for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:00:14 -0700 Received: by mail-la0-f56.google.com with SMTP id pv20sf405947lab.11 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:59:58 -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=WLLLFl+4EIMFPAHJ/JZ+9PlHkjNnQMdeukH1VUWt8bM=; b=M2IoP/JQUtFZIqzH8Mseu0pV274xHQTfwK0cE2SmafRlPLx9NVWM1XmVD2qumXymMg QDkDy0M9CPAmyngBZoaAwwxNP8+v52LHlAtIceSITFPZVB1BNkVWRPhbB4UmbOgFsZpT 1EtO34CzljIQaA5eQ65BAY1dAmZulKKyNnF/zZ5TyEbIw4CGUu92AKGU5PcfJmQ7m6O2 A7HMDIAIAw0V5fOi5hVDnK7gk/ph3NIe1JzBQuUhcN0MK1CBpwNVFLliVj22+Uygg+xf lYPAeJkuxEAkB3Qba2wrCLbu43hBEbQjghpW1P1bW+5P9c9ctjccP5B2BOb0ycJvRiUw vw0A== X-Received: by 10.180.102.170 with SMTP id fp10mr43859wib.14.1412974798640; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:59:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.14.106 with SMTP id o10ls194662wic.13.gmail; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:59:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.85.8 with SMTP id d8mr1487680wiz.0.1412974798245; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:59:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rb5si503008lbb.0.2014.10.10.13.59.58 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:59:58 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::236; Received: by mail-la0-x236.google.com with SMTP id gm9so3884767lab.41 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:59:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.203.225 with SMTP id kt1mr7354183lac.68.1412974798104; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:59:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.61.107 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:59:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5437C084.7060006@gmail.com> 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> <5437C084.7060006@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 17:59:57 -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:c03::236 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=001a113458c4eaf894050517d406 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a113458c4eaf894050517d406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM, And Rosta wrote: > > 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. Lojban already has mismatches for sure, e.g. "(na ku zo'u) ma > broda". > Yes, "ma" and "ko" are outlaws in this regard (and probably not the only ones). 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 > counterposing to yours, that could simply be rendered as the > morphophonologically simpler "mi jinvi lo du'u lo broda cu brodu". Yes, but suppose you want to say: "zo'e ga nai broda gi poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u ke'a brodu", which has the same logical structure, just a different connective. Would we need a new gadri to go with this form? And another one for "zo'e gu broda gi poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u ke'a brodu", and so on? I suppose you are saying that the structure of "zo'e ge broda gi poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u ke'a brodu" is something we want to use so often that it should have a simpler form, even at the cost of complicating other rules, while I'm not seeing that it is that necessary. > 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"? The proposition expressed by "I ask whether it is dinner time yet." > As I understand it, I'm saying that the logical form for the sentence > contains only the illocution "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. I'm saying that the single locution (and the proposition it expresses) is being used simultaneously with two different illocutionary forces, in two different illocutionary acts. In one of the acts, "ask" is performative, in the other act it is not. It's just that I find it very hard to see a question as constituting a part of a claim. Possibly it's just a matter of definition and the classification of illocutionary acts, I'm not sure we are actually discussing anything very substantial.. 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. --001a113458c4eaf894050517d406 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com><= /span> wrote:

 To insist that "(bridi)" express the same proposition when bare a= nd when in "operator (bridi)" is to insist that the syntax/logica= l form of bridi must be determined solely by their morphophonological struc= ture and not rules, such as scope-leaping, that allow (carefully regulated)= mismatches. Such an insistence fosters simplicity of rules, but is not ver= y utilitarian. Lojban already has mismatches for sure, e.g. "(na ku zo= 'u) ma broda".

Yes, "ma&q= uot; and "ko" are outlaws in this regard (and probably not the on= ly ones). =C2=A0

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 ca= ndidate rules I'm counterposing to yours, that could simply be rendered= as the morphophonologically simpler "mi jinvi lo du'u lo broda cu= brodu".

Yes, but suppose you want to = say: "zo'e ga nai broda gi poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u ke'a= brodu", which has the same logical structure, just a different connec= tive. Would we need a new gadri to go with this form? And another one for &= quot;zo'e gu broda gi poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u ke'a brodu&quo= t;, and so on? I suppose you are saying that the structure of "zo'= e ge broda gi poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u ke'a brodu" is someth= ing we want to use so often that it should have a simpler form, even at the= cost of complicating other rules, while I'm not seeing that it is that= necessary.=C2=A0

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&qu= ot;?

The proposition expressed by "I = ask whether it is dinner time yet."
=C2=A0
As I understand it, I'm saying that the logical form for the sente= nce contains only the illocution "I hereby ask whether", while yo= u are saying it contains both the illocution and a separate referential des= cription of the illocution. But in that case, there is nothing that is bein= g used for both things at the same time.

I&= #39;m saying that the single locution (and the proposition it expresses) is= being used simultaneously with two different illocutionary forces, in two = different illocutionary acts. In one of the acts, "ask" is perfor= mative, in the other act it is not. It's just that I find it very hard = to see a question as constituting a part of a claim. Possibly it's just= a matter of definition and the classification of illocutionary acts, I'= ;m not sure we are actually discussing anything very substantial..

mu'o mi'e xorxes

<= /div>

--
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.
--001a113458c4eaf894050517d406--