From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 21 23:25:52 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3497 ; Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:25:49 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jun 95 07:26:13 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa14589; 21 Jun 95 8:25 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5653; Wed, 21 Jun 95 03:23:15 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0794; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:23:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:23:25 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: curmi X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506210825.aa14589@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >> >Why does {curmi} have "under conditions" but not {gasnu}? >> >> curmi: like xanka, the conditions tend to relate to the x1's state of mind, >> while conditions might also be found inside the sumti clause being permitted, >> that are unrelated to the state of mind. >> >> Why should gasnu? You either ARE an agent, or you are NOT. I don't see >> much basis for this comparison. > >You could just as well say that you either LET something happen, or you >do NOT. Why is your state of mind important when you let something fall, >but not when you make it fall? Because if your state of mind is important (at least as people normally see states of mind being related to actions), you can use zukte. "let" implies a mental decision on the part of a person that can affect the occurance of x2. curmi requires such a mental state. gasnu does not. A mindless object can be a gasnu, but not a curmi. One does not say that A "lets B happen", unless B's potential happening imposes some kind of mental state on A that relates to a potential capability of A to interfere with B. I can't truthfully say "I let the sun rise", because I can't help it or hinder it. I can say "I let my son go outside" because I have the potential to interfere, and "let" implies a mental decision to NOT interfere. It is uncertain whether "I let my son think about going outside" makes sense since I don't know how I could stop him, but I could say "I let myself think about going outside." I suppose it is possible to stretch curmi to include amental x1 - does a brake pedal not depressed "let" the car keep moving? Or is it only possible to say thhat with reference to the point of view of a person who could decide to use the brake pedal. Note that "curmi" is not necessarily "fail to stop/interfere" - the brake failing to stop the car did not "curmi" the car going off the cliff. The gismu list is an attempt to divide up semantic space as it is used by people, not to try to impose some kind of artificial parallelism on all concepts. The division need not be optimal, so long as it is adequate. I would suspect that if I had an amental example parallelling curmi, I would be able to find some phrasing using some other gismu that does not imply a mental state. The gismu list is adequate, if we have a way to do so for all actual thoughts that occur to Lojban speakers. I don't care about potential thoughts - anything is possible. lojbab