From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Mar 27 11:21:20 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:21:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNxGw-0005mJ-NU for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:21:02 -0800 Received: from web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.128]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNxGu-0005lw-LL for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:21:02 -0800 Received: (qmail 92632 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Mar 2006 19:20:59 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=D24xxjVb7hMqe/xd9V+7XID7nkLEH5h+VDfVsevz5alm9w46eaOhgNASIXT1uNPQrY0JdFhadnL+RZNEx1158+mPj4HBf+yJsitW0cwa/wtHLaNDPUz28JsQ1WrnyyaEhpTZKXuCmVFmxK1LI8uf+8R5nLppi3WwOi8NzqprVis= ; Message-ID: <20060327192059.92630.qmail@web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.183.14] by web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:20:59 PST Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:20:59 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: semantic primes can define anything To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560603270842p567d03faw108b925add61491@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11259 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 3/27/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > > I have always thought the "opinion" part of > > {jinvi} was peripheral in a sense; > > Given the x4 of {jinvi} (the "grounds") it is > hard to see how it > could be peripheral. Well, since opinions don't require evidence, I never could get those two together. > > > > I can > > > think (pensi) of pigs flying > > > without opining (jinvi) that pigs fly. > > > > But apparently you can't pensi of pigs > flying; > > there is no place for propositional content. > > mi pensi lo nu lo xarju cu vofli > I think of an event of pigs flying. But what do you think of it? This always seems elliptical to me. > > Or > > do you want that {pensi2} is for > propositional > > content (which would eliminate a raft of > > problems)? > > No, I think pensi is fine as it is, but that it > is not for opinions. I didn't say anything about opinions: I can think content without necessarily affirming it (indeed, the need for that other pattern is why I have trouble with {jinvi} as opinion). > > Yes; I think it has to be "something happens > to > > something." But again, in the absence of > more > > cases it is hard to be sure. > > I found this one, but I don't know if it's > official: > > X feels sad = > X feels something > sometimes a person thinks something like this: > "something bad happened > if I didn't know that it happened I would say: > 'I don't want it to happen' > I don't say this now because I know: 'I can't > do anything'" > because of this, this person feels something > bad > X feels something like this That is official (as of 2004 when Goddard uses it) and I missed it skimming my list. So yes > So apparently things can HAPPEN without > happening (explicitly) > to something. > But I wonder about the explicit/implicit divide here. They shouldn't allow it in careful work, but if they don't then they have two possibly different uses of "happen." Hmmmm To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.