Received: from mail-la0-f62.google.com ([209.85.215.62]:38416)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDNZFNNFVAHRB45H4SQQKGQEWSQFNYA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Xcup1-00010R-Qa
	for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 04:26:58 -0700
Received: by mail-la0-f62.google.com with SMTP id pn19sf470745lab.27
        for <lojban-list-archive@lojban.org>; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 04:26:44 -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=hkIJPbsnubytSe3f58eTRDmxvac9bwxJLY5JJ9Qcpr0=;
        b=JmngY5ILyHGdUJy/qK1BjwZw879m7NTZVHU6xvJuZ22putW0RZVpaEk0XXbuPphHWn
         3X5JgZ4TIW0pRIqy8Wmhlo+ljJW9lOx7/YiOYX9vBQ4S3yCi+4TgnPcSUx3UOGcjYbMx
         qdySaNIAy/bXhestNrRzyIOCCas3cyLEdip0e+9z4qyuhM/yLPkWh+eP4UwKTa/ssT4J
         k15oJqkv13k5NPv/VtUgJiX+U2hgGZnfgh1eYu9ddm84NWKLUVhtBGYLZQS/6bEsu/wP
         8ZSlGA370T5J0B2tKApIK+aI1wLrtUWqESun91CtSRg0bOZ2FXW79RwtrpXnbtJbXgl3
         lrRQ==
X-Received: by 10.152.23.168 with SMTP id n8mr15397laf.6.1413026803962;
        Sat, 11 Oct 2014 04:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.152.21.193 with SMTP id x1ls367316lae.53.gmail; Sat, 11 Oct
 2014 04:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.152.5.137 with SMTP id s9mr15691las.10.1413026802948;
        Sat, 11 Oct 2014 04:26:42 -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 u2si331893wiw.0.2014.10.11.04.26.42
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sat, 11 Oct 2014 04:26:42 -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 n3so4042996wiv.17
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 04:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.62.166 with SMTP id z6mr10289511wjr.44.1413026802838;
        Sat, 11 Oct 2014 04:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([95.149.220.151])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i1sm5411957wix.23.2014.10.11.04.26.38
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sat, 11 Oct 2014 04:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <543913F4.2090801@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 12:26:44 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
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> <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> <CAO7tK2fbXCiKhefYoZSXfUT-RU83MrJZ9L62QO8fZQdvgBss8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5437C084.7060006@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2cfz=UV7+xqqA0UcSH_cnOTAHT+xAspRJiSL5gO_itavw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2cfz=UV7+xqqA0UcSH_cnOTAHT+xAspRJiSL5gO_itavw@mail.gmail.com>
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: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
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 21:59:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:a=
nd.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     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 co=
unterposing to yours, that could simply be rendered as the morphophonologic=
ally 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.

I'm not saying it's necessary, just that it's useful and not daft, and that=
 therefore one is not led ineluctably, because of the lack of alternatives,=
 to the presuppositional version but rather is faced with an apparently arb=
itrary choice between the presuppositional and nonpresuppositional versions=
.

>         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 t=
he illocution. But in that case, there is nothing that is being used for bo=
th 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..

We seem not so much to be disagreeing as to each be using a model of senten=
ce meaning that differs from the other's in ways we have not fathomed the n=
ature of.

My understanding doesn't have access to a model of sentence meaning in whic=
h propositions are used for things (such as illocutionary acts). I understa=
nd illocutionary operators to be part of logical form, and, for the reasons=
 under discussion, an illocutionary operator can be an argument -- in this =
particular example, a question can be a causee, which is not ontologically =
weird. The illocutionary operator in its own right is (interpreted as) an a=
ction, while as argument of another predicate that in turn is argument of a=
 different (in this instamce, assertive) illocutionary operator, it is part=
 of a description of a state of affairs. The dual function of the rogative =
illocutionary is due to the way logical forms are interpreted: each illocut=
ionary is interpreted as a performative action, and the argument of an illo=
cutionary is interpreted as a description of a state of affairs. I claim no=
t that my understanding is the only possible coherent one, but rather only =
that my understanding=20
is the only coherent one I'm aware of.

--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.