From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:49:56 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 3 Aug 1993 19:27:47 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9158; Tue, 03 Aug 93 19:26:40 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8565; Tue, 03 Aug 93 19:28:01 EDT Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 00:25:20 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: Mr Andrew Rosta Subject: Re: TECH: query re. selcmavo NU X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET, John Cowan To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Mon, 02 Aug 93 18:53:58 D.) <9308022257.AA78453@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Ukn Aug 3 19:27:48 1993 X-From-Space-Address: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Message-ID: <6-UX9CrRFeC.A.PYH.Uy0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> John Cowan writes: > Actually, "mi prenu" does not >refer< to anything except you yourself. > It >asserts< or >claims< that you are a person, but in no way >refers< > to any person-event or person-quality. Does Lojban semantics specify a default modality? I had assumed that "mi prenu" refers to (i.e. invokes a concept of) me being a person, and the default conventions of discourse in most contexts treat this as being a claim about how the world actually is - i.e. the claim is that there is a real analogue of the invoked concept. > > So, can I say, in order to disambiguate, something like: > > > > mi nu prenu "there exists the event of my being a person" > > This means "I am an event of (someone's) being a person." > > > mi ka prenu "there exists my personhood" > > And this means "I am a quality of (someone's) being a person." > > Presumably both these statements are false, since you are neither an event > nor a quality. I am an event in the Lojban sense - I have duration, and can be located in time. So "mi nu prenu" would seem to be true, and, for that matter, the "nu" seems redundant, since every person is an event. > To express what you want, say: > > da nu/ka mi prenu > There-exists-X-such-that-X is-an-event/quality-of (me being-a-person) Maybe the example is confusing, since the event of me being me is coextensive with the event of me being a person. So let's change it to "mi bebna" - "I am a fool" (I am assuming for the sake of argument that I shall acquire sagacity in my old age). but still, all of the following seem equivalent to me: mi bebna mi nu bebna da nu mi bebna ----- coho mihe laho .o. And .o.