From jkominek@miranda.org Fri Aug 30 18:01:29 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 30 Aug 2002 18:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miranda.org ([209.58.150.153] ident=qmailr) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17kwdj-0000v0-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 18:01:27 -0700 Received: (qmail 10441 invoked by uid 534); 31 Aug 2002 01:01:25 -0000 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:01:25 -0600 From: Jay F Kominek To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] The 16 propositional attitude predicates Message-ID: <20020830190125.D30502@miranda.org> References: <20020831005652.GA9090@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20020831005652.GA9090@allusion.net>; from fracture@allusion.net on Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 07:56:52PM -0500 X-archive-position: 856 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jkominek@miranda.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 07:56:52PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > So it would seem that having "all the relevant facts" as a sort > > default for x2 might be a useful thing. (In the case of {krici} > > "all the relevant facts" are "that it exists", so that {mi krici > > fi ko'a} would mean that I believe in ko'a, i.e. I believe that > > ko'a exists.) > > Except that zo'e already means "all the relevant blah about whatever". > Assuming you mean "all the relevant" in the sense I think you mean. > Obviously you don't know everything about john in "mi djuno fi la > djan.", the things relevant to the discussion are already expressed > through the elided zo'e. I fail to see why the meaning of zo'e needs to be special cased here, when it means "unspecified". I see no reason why this is a language failing, rather than a speaker failing. Lojban is providing the speaker with the ability to specify "all the revelvant blah" if they so desire. If they don't want to specify that, we're not supposed to be forcing them. > I think either approach makes sense, but the latter has already been > chosen, so we should stick with it. (we can't have lojban changing > more frequently than a natlang changes, can we ? ;P ) We can't have Lojban changing (until the baseline ends). -- Jay Kominek Never look a gift horse in the mouth. Or any other orifice, for that matter.