From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Jan 06 07:57:52 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:57:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H3Dv9-000692-6U for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:57:23 -0800 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H3Duu-00068q-Gj for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:57:22 -0800 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so13759829nfb for ; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:57:06 -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=EikQQ7o51APH75OiiwTyKj3IuIbsBfqdnuJ3+SZnKWkd70sZDcwfY8ErFTF5G6NEnODi2C9uGPIygbrVKtaVOXyQuvva+4lUmqMLsEQA8CoGky5U5Pog80oTSmripacNATIQramh1qZciX4ucWQ1hjT6LbLk1sgH0Bnkj6esnJ8= Received: by 10.82.139.17 with SMTP id m17mr2353928bud.1168099026781; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:57:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.115.20 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jan 2007 07:57:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560701060757o1c0b3914w2f28416a2858cb29@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:57:06 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Duty, promice etc... In-Reply-To: <3ccac5f10701060328x4dfe521el94e252b88487e24e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3ccac5f10701050608x71a6381p89a54e54e2239e65@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560701050934yc0c5158w7d06fb2f916dc9a@mail.gmail.com> <3ccac5f10701051012g4a37b11fnc22ce33e68d30747@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560701051107x61f57454x9dba1da1af8dfa2f@mail.gmail.com> <3ccac5f10701051122x6bd822a1wb5f1f4f04af79912@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560701051203n32513783neab6a15a5b5856df@mail.gmail.com> <3ccac5f10701051216h13364c34ue4b10daf63bfb52d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560701051227k6ea1881erbecc9fd3890df70b@mail.gmail.com> <3ccac5f10701060328x4dfe521el94e252b88487e24e@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 13519 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 1/6/07, Cyril Slobin wrote: > > I have spent a sleepless night thinking about the subject, and I have > some new enlightenment now. Let us put "promise" aside, consider > "request". Yes, all of these words describing performative utterances would seem to behave similarly. "Command" would be another one. > Imagine the following scenario: I, Cyril, send to you, > Jorge, a letter with request to explain your ideas about {nupre}. So you would write: (1) e'o ko ciksi lo sidbo be zo nupre bei do} A third party would describe that as: (2) la kir cu cpedu fi la xorxes fe lo nu ciksi lo sidbo be zo nupre bei xy I would say that utterance (1) is a request, but utterance (2) is not a request. Similarly: (3) nu'e do'u mi ba ciksi (4) ko'a nupre lo nu ko'a ba ciksi I would say utterance (3) is a promise, but utterance (4) is not a promise. > But > you do not receive my letter - it was disappeared into the Great Black > Hole in the Middle of the Internet. But you, being not aware about my > request, by your own initiative, write a message explaining your ideas > about {nupre}. Do you comply with my request? The answer "no" is at > least defensible. To comply with request, you must not only do the > action requested, but also do it because of request. Right. > Similarly, to > fulfil the promise is not just do the promised thing, but do it > because of promise. I agree. So {zukte lo se nupre} is not ideal for "keep a promise", because of what you say. The problem is with {zukte}, "Keep" a promise involves something more than doing whatever was promised. We probably need some lujvo. Neither {nupre} nor {cpedu} sem to have a corresponding gismu for the carrying out of the promise/request, but interesingly {minde} does have {tinbe}. So what we need is to fill the gaps in: minde:tinbe cpedu:????? nupre:????? Perhaps {cpemansa} and {nupmansa}? Then {midmansa}={tinbe}. > So my current solution is: > > le nu do mu'igi nupre gi zukte vau ko'a cu se bebna > > But at this point I remember about the price of infinite precision... > So for practical needs I just say {tu'a lo se nupre be do cu bebna}. Or {lo nu do nupmansa cu se bebna} 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.