Return-Path: Message-Id: <9110161810.AA19617@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Wed Oct 16 15:08:02 1991 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: pc tackles an aphorism X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 16 15:08:02 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Surprisingly, at the same time the LA group attempted "Not to decide is to decide" John Parks-Clifford (pc) also was attempting the same aphorism, which discussion I (lojbab) just received Monday (my notes in brackets []): " The obvious translation is lenu na jdice cu nu jdice le nu na jdice cu nu jdice The event of not deciding is an event of deciding This may be adequate, but it leaves uncertain in Lojban many things which are relatively clear in English, with its well-developed habits of implications. For example, in English, it is clear that both the subject and the topic of the decision are the same in both cases: who makes the decision and what the decision is about. Whether that is true in Lojban is not clear, so to be on the safe side, we should probably put them in: lenu da na jdice fi de cu nu da jdice fi de lenu da na jdice fi de cu nu da jdice fi de x's not deciding about y is x deciding about y with the paradox fully displayed. What is decided (x2) is, of course, omitted in both cases - and it needs must be different. For what one refuses to decide is not what one decides. Indeed, one decides not to decide and, thus, allows the status quo to go on without one's having decided to do so (at least that is the secret hope behind not deciding). I think making all that explicit is going to far. Surely the conventions in Lojban can carry this freight, and putting it in ruins the gnomic quality. The same is true for the explicit universal quantifiers on da and de, which are understood as prenex to the whole utterance (but aren't they always in proverbs?) [What pc is saying is that the x's and y's are by implication true for all x's and y's in the above, because proverbs tend to make universal statements. The unquanitifed da and de as used actually claim only the existential: for some x and y, x not deciding about y is an event of x deciding about y. Bob, Nora, and Athelstan agree that we would prefer the explicit quantifier to be included whereever possible.] Another possible translation is le na jdice (befi da) cu jdice (fi da) le na jdice befi da cu jdice befi da the not decider (about x) decides (about x) This is snappier than the earlier version (even with the x parts added) but it less clearly forces the intended reading: "one who does not decide thereby decides". It could just be "One who does not decide finally does decide", or even "Old Wishy-washy finally made up his mind for once." So barring something explicit of the form da poi na jdice cu jdice pu'e lenu da na jdice da poi na jdice cu jdice pu'e lenu da na jdice x who doesn't decide is a decider by the process of x not deciding the earlier one seems better. [For the following bear in mind that Lojban subcategorizes event abstracts as being 'states', 'processes', 'achievements' (point events), or 'activities'.] But it could be sharpened a bit. After all, "nu" is very vague and different kinds of events behave very differently. What kind of event is not deciding - or deciding for that matter? Not deciding pretty clearly goes on, so it is not an achievement. Deciding is in one sense an achievement "reach/make a decision". But it also has its extended side, a process, apparently, since it has a goal, a definite end with a product: the decision. Not deciding, then, is at least partly going through bits and pieces of that process without completing it - an activity at least. Indeed, an activity altogether, since, unlike a process, you can be said to have completed it in miniature as soon as you can be said to be doing it at all. [i.e., even a brief moment of 'not making' a decision' involves doing something we can still call 'not making a decision', even though we are continuing 'not making a decision for a much longer time - this situation is part of the definition of an Aristotelian 'activity'.] And like all activities, it is made up of little pieces of different sorts, processes and activities, more or less cyclically: thinking about the topic, avoiding thinking about the topic, forgetting about the topic, putting off thinking about the topic, putting off deciding (achievement) about the topic, and so on. Now all of that would alllow Cox's gnomon to be just the triviality that the activity of not deciding is (a part of) the process of deciding - deliberately (or not) cut off from reaching a conclusion. But I suspect that the intended force is just the opposite, that the activity is completely the achievement and its afterglow, the stae of having achieved the goal [the decision]): le zu'o da na jdice fi de cu mu'e da jdice fi de le zu'o da na jdice fi de cu mu'e da jdice fi de The activity of x not deciding about y is an achievement of x deciding about y Not deciding is having decided. But - most unfittingly for a proverb - this just ain;t true in general. Not deciding is often a legitimate part of the decision process and does not preempt its completion. Until, that is, the decisive time, the turning point, the right moment to decide ("once to every man or nation .."). To keep on not deciding at or after THAT point IS to have rendered a decision and be living in its afterglow (or shadow, as the case may be). But this is not a matter of types of activity but of their relations to time, in particular, as the words used show - of extensional aspect: superfective not deciding, going on beyond its proper bound, amounts to the perfective of deciding, done but not done with, le za'o zu'o da na jdice fi de cu ba'o mu'e da jdice fi de le za'o zu'o da na jdice fi de cu the continuing too long activity of x not deciding about y is the ba'o mu'e da jdice fi de aftermath achievement of x deciding about y To keep on not deciding (too long) is to have decided. [to which you can add that universal prenex pc says he left out: roda rode zo'u for all x, for all y : " [Bob responds: this shows how much thought can be put into translation. Most will be satisfied with the simple, glico and possibly malglico form that pc started with, which is similar to or identical with what the LA group came up with. But Lojban is capable of much richer expression, and a Lojbanic aphorism will undoubtedly use Lojban's strong points, as the English writer (Cox) used English's strongpoints in the original. pc shows one way to accomplish this - through Lojban's tenses and abstractors. But remember, there is no right or wrong answer - as long as it means to the listener what you intended it to mean - that is the art of communication. Myself, I think, all of pc's attempts miss the mark because he tried too hard to go from the English "is to decide" into some form of jdice as the main selbri of the sentence. I see the aphorism as saying that either "not deciding is the equivalent of deciding" or a causal such as "not deciding results in deciding". I will however retain his elaborate tense/event analysis: le za'o zu'o da na jdice fi de cu se jalge le mu'o da jdice fi de le za'o zu'o da na jdice fi de cu se jalge le the continuing-too-long activity x not deciding about y gives result the mu'o da jdice fi de achievement x decides about y and an 'equivalence' interpretation, using a 'state' abstractor - pc did not discuss this kind, but it sees an event as a relatively unchanging amorphous continuing event. In te following, there is the implication that each state continues/lasts as long as the other does. le za'i da na jdice fi de cu mintu le za'i da jdice fi de le za'i da na jdice fi de cu mintu le za'i da the state of x not deciding about y is identical to the state of x jdice fi de deciding about y ] John Parks-Clifford, Philosophy Dept. University of Missouri, St. Louis (not on net) c/o lojbab = Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 lojbab@grebyn.com