From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Mon Sep 16 15:59:14 1991 Return-Path: Date: Mon Sep 16 15:59:14 1991 Message-Id: <9109160428.AA03949@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: copy of sci.lang posting X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO Newsgroups: sci.lang Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. Summary: Undecideable without context; English is ambiguous Keywords: assertion, inference, attitude, Lojban e343mh@tamuts.tamu.edu (Michael Hand) writes: >The doctrine of parentheticals holds that (1) is not really an assertion >about what I think, but about John. The `I think' just hedges the >speaker's commitment a bit. > >(1) I think John will arrive about 8:00. > >The strict compositional doctrine holds that (1) is an assertion about >what I think, but the conversational inference concerning John's arrival >is so easy and fast that `I think' is pragmatically insignificant. > >What are some arguments that help decide between these two views? Both interpretations are valid, in different contexts. There is no way to decide between them in English given an absence of contextual information. Alternatively, in spoken English, we might use tone of voice. Relative emphatic stress on either of the first two words suggests that "I think" is the main claim. In spoken English, we can even make the sentence be about "John's arrival", or "8:00", changing only emphasis. In Lojban, we clearly distinguish these meanings, presumably showing Lojban more 'compositional' than English. The translations shed light on the English ambiguity. I've stuck to same sentence order and avoided hyperlogical constructions, since the purpose is analysis of English. Lojban also allows specification of a topic 'up front' to make it clear what the sentence is 'about', but this more resembles Japanese than English. The following pair use speaker attitudinals, which are incidental and discursive to a claim (tome of voice conveys such discursive content in English), to make it clear that the main predicate is the arrival, with John as the subject. pe'i la djan ba klamu'o caze'a la bicac. I opine John will arrive at-interval 8:00 .ia la djan ba klamu'o caze'a la bicac. I believe John will arrive at-interval 8:00 The following has the speaker's belief as the predicate, and the speaker as the subject. (The parallel sentence for opinion is expressed by substituting jinvi for krici) mi krici ledu'u la djan ba klamu'o caze'a la bicac. I believe the predication John will arrive at-interval 8:00 The following is similar to the first two, but makes the speaker's belief part of the claim in a subordinate role. du'o mi la djan ba klamu'o caze'a la bicac. According to me, John will arrive at-interval 8:00 To make the arrival clearly the 'subject', I'll use the attitudinal version. .ia lenu la djan ba klamu'o cu fasnu caze'a la bicac. I believe the event John will arrive occurs at-interval 8:00. The event occurring is the predication here. In the following, the time of day becomes the predicate: .ia lenu la djan ba klamu'o cu jibni se tcika la bicac. I believe the event John will arrive is-approximately betimed by 8:00 Making 8:00 the heart of the claim is the furthest reach, and least likely in the English, too: .ia lenu la djan cu klamu'o kei tcika I believe the event John arriving time-of-day cu jibni ke cacra bimoi approximately hourishly-eighth This range of more or less plausible interpretations makes me reluctant to state conclusions on pragmatic interpretation of individual English sentences. And I didn't even try to get inventive. ---- lojbab = Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 lojbab@grebyn.com NOTE THAT THIS IS A NEW NET ADDRESS AND SUPERSEDES OTHERS IN MY POSTINGS OR LOGICAL LANGUAGE GROUP, INC. PUBLICATIONS For information about Lojban, please provide a snail-post address to me via mail or phone. We are funded solely by contributions, which are encouraged for the purpose of defraying our costs, but are not mandatory.