From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Sep 08 14:49:53 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml8ZU-0006vv-No for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:49:53 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f217.google.com ([209.85.219.217]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml8ZR-0006vA-Fg for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:49:52 -0700 Received: by ewy17 with SMTP id 17so443036ewy.15 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:49:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=hwCyHNvIoMtHmoNEYD1Qq6jnHXV19zMNtjrh7KknTrw=; b=m10k4SEf27IABDO3EKftnq7MX3JwgIFHgRL1q1y69mZe8BqreMO+295J0bECkppnt6 MWpqqUHXVizWTib0eJ24UHlwmiRWda8YZ0mm7mXd8VP4V6iprF+fgx/VVkaTyAUqUEuh 5L5v4IhvK36NhWSgczyLXgvw/0ZtRU41vQleM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=YFGJb6OBps+IVNDJ+1X+mCeUWWFLBQzI0sELtv5PEYPvI0L/QvuZ9Sh0bI/EEkMuw+ +TBNm7PFxCCEOmRzJgzLDNkTESmpcXSJJusiYrHrh4UVmQ7h5iSAjCLSWLvsAs7KTFqc L7002F+mVMVDtb98X4wROGXSGpB5Am5k1buBI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.210.9.13 with SMTP id 13mr3844879ebi.3.1252446582598; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:49:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <360750.48142.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909080221h297baa5eqb5eba2ad6ac1d5d5@mail.gmail.com> <200909080827.14128.phma@phma.optus.nu> <9ada8ecd0909081238j2649ee89g28c6b34c72d82b18@mail.gmail.com> <360750.48142.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 00:49:42 +0300 Message-ID: <9ada8ecd0909081449tb912e36p13501c472840131f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce0f456a7ed30047317f18a X-archive-position: 16117 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: top.squark@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --000e0ce0f456a7ed30047317f18a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Perhaps a better translation would be *mi nitcu lo nu mikcu *Roughly speaking, "I need the event of something being a doctor". Since abstractions do not have to correspond to things that actually exist, it's OK. On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:37 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > 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 miis 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?! > > --000e0ce0f456a7ed30047317f18a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Perhaps a better translation would be mi nitcu lo nu mi= kcu Roughly speaking, "I need the event of something being a docto= r". Since abstractions do not have to correspond to things that actual= ly exist, it's OK.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:37 AM, John E Clif= ford <kali9put= ra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is where problems arise.=A0 1) I would claim that lo mikce as used in=A0 lo mikce cu tavla commits the speaker, under the us= ual conditions, to claiming that there is at least one doctor who talks.=A0= I'm less sure about whether this applies in xorlo (xorxes later sugges= ts not).=A0 2) I would hold that the same applies to mi nitcu lo mikce.=A0 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 bei= ng no doctors at all and with there being doctors but no one of them being = the one I need=A0 (indeed, no several of them being the several I need).=A0 This is because "need" may open (and in this case usua= lly does) an intensional context, where several usual laws of logic fail.= =A0 In Lojban, the decision was made (well, actually, the consensus eventua= lly arose, more or less overtly) that there would be no such places in any = predicate.=A0 To fill the need for such locutions, which turn up all over t= he place -- another reason for not assigning this property to places is tha= t many places are sometimes intensional and sometimes not,=A0 there would b= e a number intensional locutions which could go anywhere (though sometimes = with odd results). References to events and propositions are two of the mos= t common such types and are regularly used for this purpose, their characte= ristic introduction (nu, etc.) mar= king the context as intensional, logic keep out.=A0 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, a= nd b) that the inference from=A0 mi nitcu= lo mikce to da poi mikce cu se ni= tcu mi is valid.=A0 This seems to mean that lo inherently gives rise to intensional contexts everywher= e (and thus is useless for most of the purposes we want to use it for, taki= ng it back historically to the very different lo of Logan, which stood, at various times in its history for m= asses in the blender sense and whatever it is that Trobriand Islanders refe= r to when they see a bit of bunny, among other things).=A0 I think this pro= blem arose because xorxes has a rather peculiar notion of how the universe = of discourse is expanded and contracted during a conversation, basically th= at anything that gets mentioned anywhere has to be in (obviously, not really this crude).=A0 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<= br>

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:27 PM,= Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 20= 4, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"> 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 doc= tor in
mind) that I need.

This is strange. Then, <= i>lo mikce cu tavla=A0doesn't mean that a doctor exists which is sp= eaking. Does it mean anything at all?!=A0


--000e0ce0f456a7ed30047317f18a-- 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.