From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Sep 08 14:51:24 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml8ax-00074W-Pu for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:51:24 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f217.google.com ([209.85.219.217]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml8au-00073a-1h for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:51:23 -0700 Received: by ewy17 with SMTP id 17so444294ewy.15 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:51:13 -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=bi3JC7mgh1DNfH3GnmXSeMSQvfWJUxm8UAhc+eKsZOg=; b=UrXsPJpgWp2DbhINnQwzW/FayqdaG0vlFPNR+UM8G8Xek9N7ZxAsaCao0OcHu0u9L1 WKD+qoQ6KUDTNAwlr2xhB/Cdeu8LQ9tjQZbGBsYvgeND7+anhUF5zPFjd2UI7MemWC6C YtTc7TPClIyafKaDn3Kozwxc4o6b0BWwprGhY= 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=RlGnaSElfsHTZdnEYxHAPVijJ2zSUSWgW1wK6c/wOg1h3g7RaXyWzdYZsvuaaSculT KlvnZWX/fZgCYTLV8qicNWIJ+YNdDBT0MCwCN+4YueIXmVaIM0I9MN29j/8QULzcBVJs MQfpFSTbvTwv8RQ/7tzI/I6ZQBSX3EjHyVdTA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.211.145.11 with SMTP id x11mr9159489ebn.74.1252446673709; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:51:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909081449tb912e36p13501c472840131f@mail.gmail.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> <9ada8ecd0909081449tb912e36p13501c472840131f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 00:51:13 +0300 Message-ID: <9ada8ecd0909081451m457afafl646069e682fee53b@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502c881162b0c047317f733 X-archive-position: 16118 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 --00504502c881162b0c047317f733 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Of course in this particular case, higher precision of meaning would be achieved by *mi nitcu lo nu mikcu mi* On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Squark Rabinovich wrote: > 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?! >> >> > --00504502c881162b0c047317f733 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Of course in this particular case, higher precision of mea= ning would be achieved by mi nitcu lo nu mikcu mi

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com= > wrote:
Perhaps a better translati= on 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 Clif= ford <kali9putra@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



--00504502c881162b0c047317f733-- 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.