From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Sep 08 14:37:25 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml8NR-00067w-7z for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:37:25 -0700 Received: from web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.119]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml8NN-00067I-02 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:37:25 -0700 Received: (qmail 83882 invoked by uid 60001); 8 Sep 2009 21:37:14 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1252445834; bh=11fdC28f/H3xmVUVpO5RULiOMlX+5jBTl1grPzi9eEI=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=QdqmsIs06/ufQka9N0BBriPPIu0g9Gwe4UtoG4VBiyagUFMC6zzKUxI4ujf4LeMSKZCkMYY9ez9Avkeyzm648LVufGP6mMSqqfIBk68M7DrtBMPjV9ZCjkIqJdlUKmmIF1Ei1mxe/ARQfEK9B+L/u14SrMhMRgTWnf7VM/7lx6o= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=szQJId6QLkzRbBeZXCERKeXMRxMdXPEpGZ1xQlm7vQp8bmBuGkYTgcZT8AIPYtuEGsaQ9afh6gr68HEvdQnnrMtxyLTm9aUPwuyJrCj2D1VqYc+w0rdrFLzu4rs1Kf6So50epexm5urSKwW0qyevgi/lZ3aoIKiPRJGpyyLzkOc=; Message-ID: <360750.48142.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: JqcKelcVM1k3utCWOes6dZWxo7NEzB7BMnN3xrhI0nA2.ibCildOLmAwNQ08k9y1frcE1F5jisIXC9S.fgEDkzlBFyHpNhocaSILHfZHibRBA.OwbIlkXe99eTW_2AB.yvithA5zNdc86grC4HBi_1lDsjQ0sC_PicCWgWZiwYvjn8vfmWL.q2B1t2g5MxpYKo5IjHPKNNHXCX4G8qx4Cf.BvrAG5cXzQomeZhS2yJ7sP.V6ppNOBn9.4kaWhoev4NMDdgLbc8MLVHlj65XCHVZiDFAVqRW5gxL4jS.7p3DJxrBPno3whUPkciIWf0auh9i9hHVsai_J2un2yqRJLwZiOi7To_LMs_OKRP5_afjMq8c.2_joUpy__6vtsQ-- Received: from [24.207.224.145] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:37:14 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1358.27 YahooMailWebService/0.7.338.2 References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909080221h297baa5eqb5eba2ad6ac1d5d5@mail.gmail.com> <200909080827.14128.phma@phma.optus.nu> <9ada8ecd0909081238j2649ee89g28c6b34c72d82b18@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:37:14 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909081238j2649ee89g28c6b34c72d82b18@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-144586402-1252445834=:48142" X-archive-position: 16115 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --0-144586402-1252445834=:48142 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Here is where problems arise. 1) I would claim that lo mikce as used in lo mikce cu tavla commits the speaker, under the usual conditions, to claiming that there is at least one doctor who talks. I'm less sure about whether this applies in xorlo (xorxes later suggests not). 2) I would hold that the same applies to mi nitcu lo mikce. As a result, I don't think the sentence is a good translation for "I need a doctor," which does not entail that there is a doctor I need : it is compatible with there being no doctors at all and with there being doctors but no one of them being the one I need (indeed, no several of them being the several I need). This is because "need" may open (and in this case usually does) an intensional context, where several usual laws of logic fail. In Lojban, the decision was made (well, actually, the consensus eventually arose, more or less overtly) that there would be no such places in any predicate. To fill the need for such locutions, which turn up all over the place -- another reason for not assigning this property to places is that many places are sometimes intensional and sometimes not, there would be a number intensional locutions which could go anywhere (though sometimes with odd results). References to events and propositions are two of the most common such types and are regularly used for this purpose, their characteristic introduction (nu, etc.) marking the context as intensional, logic keep out. Insofar as I understand xorlo at this point, I think it says that a) there are no intensional contexts or at least that they don't apply to this case, and b) that the inference from mi nitcu lo mikce to da poi mikce cu se nitcu mi is valid. This seems to mean that lo inherently gives rise to intensional contexts everywhere (and thus is useless for most of the purposes we want to use it for, taking it back historically to the very different lo of Logan, which stood, at various times in its history for masses in the blender sense and whatever it is that Trobriand Islanders refer to when they see a bit of bunny, among other things). I think this problem arose because xorxes has a rather peculiar notion of how the universe of discourse is expanded and contracted during a conversation, basically that anything that gets mentioned anywhere has to be in (obviously, not really this crude). None of this affects the use of lo mikce in lo mikce cu tavla (except, of course, that the explanation at the metalanguage level of why it works is eerily complex). ________________________________ From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-list@lojban.org Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:38:30 PM Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > >The main advantage to xorlo in ordinary speech is that now we can say "I need >>a doctor" ("mi nitcu lo mikce") without implying that such a doctor exists or >>that there is a particular doctor (though I don't have a particular doctor in >>mind) that I need. This is strange. Then, lo mikce cu tavla doesn't mean that a doctor exists which is speaking. Does it mean anything at all?! --0-144586402-1252445834=:48142 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Here is where problems arise.  1) I would claim that lo mikce as used in  lo mikce cu tavla commits the speaker, under the usual conditions, to claiming that there is at least one doctor who talks.  I'm less sure about whether this applies in xorlo (xorxes later suggests not).  2) I would hold that the same applies to mi nitcu lo mikce.  As a result, I don't think the sentence is a good translation for "I need a doctor," which does not entail that there is a doctor I need : it is compatible with there being no doctors at all and with there being doctors but no one of them being the one I need  (indeed, no several of them being the several I need).  This is because "need" may open (and in this case usually does) an intensional context, where several usual laws of logic fail.  In Lojban, the decision was made (well, actually, the consensus eventually arose, more or less overtly) that there would be no such places in any predicate.  To fill the need for such locutions, which turn up all over the place -- another reason for not assigning this property to places is that many places are sometimes intensional and sometimes not,  there would be a number intensional locutions which could go anywhere (though sometimes with odd results). References to events and propositions are two of the most common such types and are regularly used for this purpose, their characteristic introduction (nu, etc.) marking the context as intensional, logic keep out.  Insofar as I understand xorlo at this point, I think it says that a) there are no intensional contexts or at least that they don't apply to this case, and b) that the inference from  mi nitcu lo mikce to da poi mikce cu se nitcu mi is valid.  This seems to mean that lo inherently gives rise to intensional contexts everywhere (and thus is useless for most of the purposes we want to use it for, taking it back historically to the very different lo of Logan, which stood, at various times in its history for masses in the blender sense and whatever it is that Trobriand Islanders refer to when they see a bit of bunny, among other things).  I think this problem arose because xorxes has a rather peculiar notion of how the universe of discourse is expanded and contracted during a conversation, basically that anything that gets mentioned anywhere has to be in (obviously, not really this crude).  None of this affects the use of lo mikce in lo mikce cu tavla (except, of course, that the explanation at the metalanguage level of why it works is eerily complex).

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:38:30 PM
Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
The main advantage to xorlo in ordinary speech is that now we can say "I need
a doctor" ("mi nitcu lo mikce") without implying that such a doctor exists or
that there is a particular doctor (though I don't have a particular doctor in
mind) that I need.

This is strange. Then, lo mikce cu tavla doesn't mean that a doctor exists which is speaking. Does it mean anything at all?! 

--0-144586402-1252445834=:48142-- 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.