From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jan 05 11:58:33 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:58:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2vCf-00045h-DK for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:58:14 -0800 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.190]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2vCa-00045X-5n for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:58:13 -0800 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so13252290nfb for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:58:06 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=njfLRcxDDBCHlTvgVztQFjyvbjr6AD/7axGySHSPm9QcMHeercM+5d5osd0+1AWgx1OA2WxeJ9FhMEkYzhvLhP+v5tnKszHd3BPRuoqSpUiSsB3G6uK5mVRoFXI+n6vKCjf5DGQ5lPrKygLEx7shCbw/gfYJK0Gk+OX4RzCjZbM= Received: by 10.82.165.1 with SMTP id n1mr4263938bue.1168027086346; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:58:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.115.20 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:58:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560701051158t3d29fec1n8afb2e76c7f41924@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 16:58:06 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Duty, promice etc... In-Reply-To: <20070105191524.79889.qmail@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560701050934yc0c5158w7d06fb2f916dc9a@mail.gmail.com> <20070105191524.79889.qmail@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 13503 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 1/5/07, John E Clifford wrote: > Good Austinian that I am (when convenient), the most important example > is the phrase "make a promise". While this can be taken as some sort > of figure of speech, it can usefully be taken literally, for, in the act of > promising, one creates (ex nihilo) a network of obligations which > are collectively what it means to have promised. OK, so a promise is a network of obligations, a network of {se bilga}. But a network of obligations is not an act of promising, nor the state I'm in after making a promise. My problem was with identifying a promise with the act of promising or with the state I find myself in after such an act. I have no problem with identifying a promise as something created in an act of promising, which would go in the x2 of {nupre}. > Promises also (in my idiolect anyhow) can expire > and be fulfilled (which would not normally apply to what is promised: > when I give the promised bike, my giving a bike is not fulfilled. it merely > occurs). I would say that what is promised (i.e. the thing created in the act of promising) can expire or be fulfilled, while the act of promising cannot. The state I'm in after making a promise I suppose can expire, but it cannot be fulfilled. > Also, promises can be conditional > even when what is promised is absolute (though this can usually be > worked either way). But back to the original, breaking a promise is > not breaking, in any apparent sense, the thing promised, > only the network of obligations. But isn't the network of obligations the thing promised? Isn't it {lo se nupre}? Certainly it is not the act of making a promise that gets broken. The state I'm in after a promise, maybe. > Notice also "Some promises are hard to keep" where the thing > promised is not something to be kept (promises are always > propositional/events -- so simple nouns have to be taken as elliptical > for propositions or events in which the referent of the noun plays > a prominent -- and predictable -- part; that's why there is {tu'a} after all). Neither the act of making a promise nor my state after making a promise are "kept" when I keep a promise though, so those cannot be the referents of the noun "promise" in that case. > For some othese > ("breaking a promise" especially, since it was what was asked about) we > can do without this notion of promises, as noted: "He didn't do what he > promised to" and the same probably applies on the > positive side. The case of making a promise can also, of course, be > reduced simply to promising. But the question was aboutr English > example, not how to treat them in Lojban. Yes, and although you have thrown some light on the matter, I'm still not convinced that the noun "promise" refers to the act of making a promise, at least not in ordinary uses, and much less to someone's state after having made a promise. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.