Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <543913F4.2090801@gmail.com>
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>
	<543913F4.2090801@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 10:34:53 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2eez1Acq8dDG5SouXyt5ujCctonzZ59Yp3gMUZ_rp6VQw@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=001a11c39d900e7c21050525bb5f
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a11c39d900e7c21050525bb5f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> We seem not so much to be disagreeing as to each be using a model of
> sentence meaning that differs from the other's in ways we have not fathomed
> the nature of.
>

Probably true.


> My understanding doesn't have access to a model of sentence meaning in
> which propositions are used for things (such as illocutionary acts). I
> understand 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 action, 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 illocutionary is interpreted as a performative action,
> and the argument of an illocutionary is interpreted as a description of a
> state of affairs. I claim not that my understanding is the only possible
> coherent one, but rather only that my understanding is the only coherent
> one I'm aware of.


OK, I think I follow that. I think "dual function" is the key. You are
saying that the burden of eliciting this dual function is with the
interpretation of the logical form, and I'm thinking that the logical form
itself has to separate the two functions. I can see a connection with our
respective takes on referring terms, since you would allow them to be used
both to refer and make a claim at the same time, and I would want them just
to refer.

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.

--001a11c39d900e7c21050525bb5f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, And Rosta <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">and.rosta@gmail.com</a>&gt;<=
/span> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
<br></span>
We seem not so much to be disagreeing as to each be using a model of senten=
ce meaning that differs from the other&#39;s in ways we have not fathomed t=
he nature of.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Probably true.</div><div>=
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
My understanding doesn&#39;t have access to a model of sentence meaning in =
which propositions are used for things (such as illocutionary acts). I unde=
rstand illocutionary operators to be part of logical form, and, for the rea=
sons under discussion, an illocutionary operator can be an argument -- in t=
his particular example, a question can be a causee, which is not ontologica=
lly weird. The illocutionary operator in its own right is (interpreted as) =
an action, 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 rogat=
ive illocutionary is due to the way logical forms are interpreted: each ill=
ocutionary is interpreted as a performative action, and the argument of an =
illocutionary is interpreted as a description of a state of affairs. I clai=
m not that my understanding is the only possible coherent one, but rather o=
nly that my understanding is the only coherent one I&#39;m aware of.</block=
quote><div><br></div><div>OK, I think I follow that. I think &quot;dual fun=
ction&quot; is the key. You are saying that the burden of eliciting this du=
al function is with the interpretation of the logical form, and I&#39;m thi=
nking that the logical form itself has to separate the two functions. I can=
 see a connection with our respective takes on referring terms, since you w=
ould allow them to be used both to refer and make a claim at the same time,=
 and I would want them just to refer.</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&=
#39;e xorxes</div><div>=C2=A0</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 />

--001a11c39d900e7c21050525bb5f--