Received: from mail-pa0-f58.google.com ([209.85.220.58]:55385) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YGW26-0005RE-28 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:04:03 -0800 Received: by mail-pa0-f58.google.com with SMTP id eu11sf3760073pac.3 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:03:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:reply-to:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-length:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=U2AAf20aFFMGygtSo7GRAMVJ72w+8Xrq6gxamdeK6BU=; b=SAoYRtCI08khroE9j1GJbmMLtdpPMMOi0GbE2sfvhjkTUPFOkQSQQ+Qq2EO9JuwwKC CqPJbg6SrN1Bmg3+f//cl9RhpB1wJFiyeQpDHvMHbzsGFaYOP2zkod/0SuOXDvoJ8rWR orVXTFtoDHQ5GCgLNoJRNavbBcNJy4VX0ETk4Z9M8xZWMZUc5o+Wl3zVG050LxPevgYT uFgR83C0Z3BM2WXycli/n0mhQOc4nLDB1NnbU5yy0fkZ3adQ/frmSVTHJtNollDPlV0Z VQAep8RGBLAKV1QiEXH1rEE0W3tFYtZBC0hQW8j+q/CBCHEndYHr2neH6cHFoupABD5U 4YWg== X-Received: by 10.50.128.202 with SMTP id nq10mr91559igb.12.1422464635999; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:03:55 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.25.98 with SMTP id b2ls627118igg.34.gmail; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:03:55 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.42.153.133 with SMTP id m5mr3688728icw.4.1422464635483; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:03:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm6-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm6-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.90.154]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ux1si1399302igb.1.2015.01.28.09.03.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:03:55 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.90.154 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.90.154; Received: from [98.138.101.128] by nm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jan 2015 17:03:55 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.234] by tm16.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jan 2015 17:03:55 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1049.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jan 2015 17:03:55 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 35653.75116.bm@omp1049.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: 5s70L8wVM1m15cVpkoFJjMpu8rWRqc6_b_qhwBb7k0musdrjpLgPr88vx9fj66_ yhLxY6vOW6DVLZS9oVs1yt.mcpvKNwkHh7SAdL2W6yZa1xOwVYXz.K9bFFLOsLmlUINDosSU3_IV A9rBBs1crcnQKWOpe3FR_s7Vx8wGPg9Ec9iBfMKhQzObC79kPTEvpKGsyAabrBw6J3xXgEie8Qdh NBsdUtdTJhWFzjj96GaLIXLvkM7LYRgLQvgwD6ceeian3wt2XT2chatdJFEdUDfokX4AyJeJ7VI0 XqydBLQZVCyPyjlQ.EQ4nWCdH.vWgxT70DQTputUk6sr.hSntkgTGIUCVxyuxKyh8Sd7pipXpyRO letBY4_pEOnaFltAAY5_qYICLcWROan2T0cr4RZoft9iLZYN1MFGZ_diS5sXu4lfDlk95JfI4O55 aIEpXQJMpvUOWbGteeLGjo_Ya07RUEa1gAJ5hGv4_FOulJsDJs9OcyxiQFpzEMTqFXI0cRM5SUmE qNCPmmLMgSSmvTnIpvV7fEUo1_Q2.aMXE49798OAwlUeEPlJdml8jnz5k4AN1zPOJbZK8h5f9SWy 9rkJmDyDZQ24sYuspu4wHqY4.qELUgw4KFyH4zXEb69jup9.oxf12XpAb0NyiD_.ncuo5kfZSBJe 8b7SVSeit4cN1z7ts2OyOUf9t8KTaImeSUKPXVCieqF3buPofpwa750F9Lqmo.nbeECKGWHBolq0 jwYeTsD_zvNumROuziyRNe.FMuwc3X5_RFOQ- Received: by 98.138.105.241; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:03:54 +0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:03:54 +0000 (UTC) From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Message-ID: <731619219.1158694.1422464634254.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1158690_1601231264.1422464634248" Content-Length:10823 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.90.154 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=yahoo.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: , X-Original-From: John E Clifford X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.7 X-Spam_score_int: 7 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: To summarize (I think): "I saw a plane flying over Zurich" is syntactically ambiguous (amphibolous) because it not clear whether the "flying over Zurich" modifies "I" or "a plane" (or, possibly, both). Â This is a grammatical fact which gives rise to a practical uncertainty: which proposition is being asserted, roughly, Â "When I was flying over Zurich, I saw a plane" Â or "I saw a plane when it was flying over Zurich". Â Lojban cannot create this uncertainty in the same way, since it cannot produce an amphibolous sentence, so, if it wants to create the same (or a practically similar) uncertainty, it must say, in effect "When either I or a plane were flying over Zurich, I saw the plane". Â Same uncertainty, but no amphiboly. Â (It is not quite the same uncertainty, since tgis asserts a definite proposition, whereas the original English failed to actually assert one, only presenting two possibilities, neither of them really put forward.) Â There is a school of (incomplete) thought that holds that even this sentence fails to assert a proposition, since it is not completely fixed in space, time and circumstance (not perfectly pragmatically bound), but that means that no statement ever gives a complete proposition, since all the circumstances (which are infinite) can never be set forth. Â Thus, given that the context identifies me and thee, {mi prami do} does give a complete proposition, one sometimes true, sometimes false, and sometimes inappropriate. Â The worst that can be said of it is that it is vague, that something that ought to be specified Gricely is not. Â But, except in specially defined situations, there is nothing missing in this case, so it is not even vague. Â (Even the claim that 'prami' is inherently vague doesn't really apply, since those problems call for special circumstances again to rise to the level of relevance -- not that those circumstances are ever very far from view). Â [...] Content analysis details: (0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: googlegroups.com] 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in googlegroups.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.220.58 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid ------=_Part_1158690_1601231264.1422464634248 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To summarize (I think): "I saw a plane flying over Zurich" is syntactically= ambiguous (amphibolous) because it not clear whether the "flying over Zuri= ch" modifies "I" or "a plane" (or, possibly, both). =C2=A0This is a grammat= ical fact which gives rise to a practical uncertainty: which proposition is= being asserted, roughly, =C2=A0"When I was flying over Zurich, I saw a pla= ne" =C2=A0or "I saw a plane when it was flying over Zurich". =C2=A0Lojban c= annot create this uncertainty in the same way, since it cannot produce an a= mphibolous sentence, so, if it wants to create the same (or a practically s= imilar) uncertainty, it must say, in effect "When either I or a plane were = flying over Zurich, I saw the plane". =C2=A0Same uncertainty, but no amphib= oly. =C2=A0(It is not quite the same uncertainty, since tgis asserts a defi= nite proposition, whereas the original English failed to actually assert on= e, only presenting two possibilities, neither of them really put forward.) = =C2=A0 There is a school of (incomplete) thought that holds that even this sentenc= e fails to assert a proposition, since it is not completely fixed in space,= time and circumstance (not perfectly pragmatically bound), but that means = that no statement ever gives a complete proposition, since all the circumst= ances (which are infinite) can never be set forth. =C2=A0Thus, given that t= he context identifies me and thee, {mi prami do} does give a complete propo= sition, one sometimes true, sometimes false, and sometimes inappropriate. = =C2=A0The worst that can be said of it is that it is vague, that something = that ought to be specified Gricely is not. =C2=A0But, except in specially d= efined situations, there is nothing missing in this case, so it is not even= vague. =C2=A0(Even the claim that 'prami' is inherently vague doesn't real= ly apply, since those problems call for special circumstances again to rise= to the level of relevance -- not that those circumstances are ever very fa= r from view). =C2=A0=20 On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 7:26 AM, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote: =20 =20 On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: How can {lo se xi vei pa a re no'a} be monoparsed in pragmatic terms? It st= ill has two readings. It has a single parse. One that involves a disjunction.=C2=A0 {mi prami do} still has zillions of readings including {mi ba'o prami do} a= nd {mi ba zu ze'i ru'i prami do}. Not really, it only expresses the relation "prami" between two arguments "m= i" and "do", basically P{m,d) in FOPL notation. There's no syntactic ambigu= ity. The wikipedia article on ambiguity discusses the distinction between a= mbiguity and vagueness, as well as different types of ambiguity: http://en.= wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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. =20 --=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. ------=_Part_1158690_1601231264.1422464634248 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To summarize (I think): "I saw a = plane flying over Zurich" is syntactically ambiguous (amphibolous) because = it not clear whether the "flying over Zurich" modifies "I" or "a plane" (or= , possibly, both).  This is a grammatical fact which gives rise to a p= ractical uncertainty: which proposition is being asserted, roughly,  "= When I was flying over Zurich, I saw a plane"  or "I saw a plane when = it was flying over Zurich".  Lojban cannot create this uncertainty in = the same way, since it cannot produce an amphibolous sentence, so, if it wa= nts to create the same (or a practically similar) uncertainty, it must say,= in effect "When either I or a plane were flying over Zurich, I saw the pla= ne".  Same uncertainty, but no amphiboly.  (It is not quite the s= ame uncertainty, since tgis asserts a definite proposition, whereas the ori= ginal English failed to actually assert one, only presenting two possibilit= ies, neither of them really put forward.)  
There is a school of (incomplete) thought that holds th= at even this sentence fails to assert a proposition, since it is not comple= tely fixed in space, time and circumstance (not perfectly pragmatically bou= nd), but that means that no statement ever gives a complete proposition, si= nce all the circumstances (which are infinite) can never be set forth. &nbs= p;Thus, given that the context identifies me and thee, {mi prami do} does g= ive a complete proposition, one sometimes true, sometimes false, and someti= mes inappropriate.  The worst that can be said of it is that it is vag= ue, that something that ought to be specified Gricely is not.  But, ex= cept in specially defined situations, there is nothing missing in this case= , so it is not even vague.  (Even the claim that 'prami' is inherently= vague doesn't really apply, since those problems call for special circumst= ances again to rise to the level of relevance -- not that those circumstanc= es are ever very far from view).  


=
On W= ednesday, January 28, 2015 7:26 AM, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmai= l.com> wrote:




On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

How can {lo se xi vei pa a re no'a} be monoparsed in pragmatic terms?= It still has two readings.

It has a single parse. One that involves a disjunction.
 
{mi pra= mi do} still has zillions of readings including {mi ba'o prami do} and {mi = ba zu ze'i ru'i prami do}.

=
Not really, it only expresses the relation "prami" between two a= rguments "mi" and "do", basically P{m,d) in FOPL notation. There's no synta= ctic ambiguity. The wikipedia article on ambiguity discusses the distinctio= n between ambiguity and vagueness, as well as different types of ambiguity:= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity
=

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 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/o= ptout.


--
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.
------=_Part_1158690_1601231264.1422464634248--