From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:50:05 2010
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 3 Aug 1993 00:14:21 -0400
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 4828; Tue, 03 Aug 93 00:13:14 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 0354; Tue, 03 Aug 93 00:14:30 EDT
Date:         Tue, 3 Aug 1993 00:11:46 EDT
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Subject:      Re: Discourse Analysis & Pragmatics
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-From-Space-Date: Ukn Aug  3 00:14:22 1993
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab@GREBYN.COM
Message-ID: <0vxo0jDjt9F.A.jaH.dy0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

pc is the person who knows Grice, and apparently quite well, but he doesn't
(yet) get the pleasure of joining in these group gropes.  he also tends to
only answer questions that are asked of him, and we don't ask pragmatics
questions often because indeed we want "usage" to decide where logic does
not explicitly do so.  When in doubt, I have been prone to add in multiple
forms to cover the possible ways usage MIGHT decide, and lead only in perhaps
making one a little easier (at least for me) to say - per Zipf's law.  But
I don;t presume to know enough linguistics (and indeed I am sure that mankind
doesn't know enough linguistics) to settle the pragmatics questions enough
to make the language completely defined in those areas.

Since pc's specialty in tense logic and in effect the corresponding area of

linguistics, he was extremely consulted about that design.  But the
Imaginary Journey's metaphor was imposed on the structure pc and I came up
 with
AFTER THE FACT, and likewise the tense paper was written in an attempt to
explain stuf which English speakers (who are the people normally reading
John's papers) aren;t going to easily understand.

There is also a stream of usage history that affected the flow of the de
sign,
as John mentioned.  the final ZAho system was about the third iteration,
and the eariler iterations for example did not even try to equate ZAhOs
across the board with PU tenses  (and indeed they are not equivalent
-remeber that you can have a "fe'eba'o" a good way to express "beyond"
tomy way of thinking.  ba'o need not be limited to time whereas "b
a" always is.

lojbab