From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jan 05 14:13:49 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:13:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2xJS-0008R9-Gb for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:13:23 -0800 Received: from web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.120]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2xJK-0008Qw-KF for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:13:22 -0800 Received: (qmail 61146 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Jan 2007 22:13:07 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=rdvob20g01BZUm487GptzXonoqOXR27Aehs6A52aaXzFI9mmj2DUDZx2hCpfB9vgBIIMdiaV08D8rImf/mgeUessw9J3MAG8gD4RuFiZ2goSQjK72toMFHH0JzUUuZRdncOBiy31Cm4Hs2PSrEJIbl7cM6t3gtRT1wEN9Eat38Y=; X-YMail-OSG: UayFWCwVM1mOJPMIMNRwxNu2N3ddfd2Ae1SuCBGaBgyVzthBiMTkJCcJnyQvgX0I.PsOiQpP4gF9I6cLVc27hjBR4Pmw_6Lf2_jXTx1b_ASPEYSXXZqFfw-- Received: from [70.237.196.59] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:13:07 PST Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:13:07 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Duty, promice etc... To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560701051231y30cacef5yd2e3faa430ca3833@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <63294.60437.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Score-Int: -6 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 13512 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 So, "obligation" is (not surprisingly) ambiguous in pretty much the way "promise" is: it can mean either the thing one is obliged to or something else -- roughly the fact that one is so obliged. All of this suggests that we may want to rethink just how the Lojban words {nupre, bilga} and maybe others are related to the English. {nupre} is fine for the speech act, perhaps, but has to be used with care in translating other expressions involving "promise." Incidentally, the use of "promise" for the thing promised is becoming stranger and stranger to my ear: as it is claimed for various contexts, it seems less and less plausible at home. "I got what he promised me" means something very different from "I got his promise to me," for example. --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 1/5/07, Cyril Slobin wrote: > > > > > A network of obligations might be {lo gunma be lo se bilga}. > > > > No. {le gumna be lo nu bilga}, not {... lo se bilga}. > > But it is {lo se bilga} that are the obligations, not {lo nu se bilga}. > > For example, giving you a bicycle might be my obligation, > my being obliged to give you a bicycle is not my obligation. > > 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. > > 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.