Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:08:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712171408.JAA22859@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism) X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 5102 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 17 09:08:48 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > >> To put ce'u in there > >> (unless I put it in all places) is to focus on a particular place as > >> significant to my apporval. The statement is NOT that I approve of > >> the property of beautiful things or the property of people appreciating > >> beautiful things or the property of aspects leading to appreciation of > >> beauty or the property of aesthetic standards being used for such recognitio > >> of beauty. > > > >Yes it is. > > > >> The statement is appreciation of Beauty, in all of its > >> ramifications > > > >No. That's not how Lojban ka abstractions work. > > That is how I use them, and how they have been used since they started. It is helpful, I think, to distinguish between one's own usage and what is prescribed. Likewise, it is helpful to distinguish between usage history and what is prescribed. For example, usage history contains a lot of sumti-raising, but this runs contrary to the prescription. I was reporting the prescription. > The ONLY way I can see to use ce'u is to put it in ALL the places. And with no non-ce`u sumti within the abstraction? Anyway, as far as your own usage goes, that's all well and good, but if you want to understand and be understood by others, then getting a feel for ce`u will be necessary. Presumably the refgram didn't work for you, but hopefully exposure to enough examples will. > My understanding is that ka without ce'u ispretty much equivalent to doing so, Not really, not even by convention of common usage. > but thatmay be because I do not understand ce'u, NOT because I don't understand > ka. If you don't understand ce`u then I don't see how you can understand ka. > >I suggest: > > > > mi zanru le ka ce`u nu melbi > > > >for the meaning you want. > > No. having thought of it, I think the ce'u-in-all-places is more > valid, because I think of ka bridi as multi-aspectual. I think both are possible, and subtly different. Which one is more appropriate depends, I feel, on why exactly you approve of it. > What is not clear to > me is whether ce'u in all places is ENOUGH, or whether we need ce'u in all > places plus all possible tcita sumti. How do you mean "all possible tcita sumti"? All possible sumti? Then I'd have thought that {ka ce`u nu da xi pa da xi re da xi ci da xi vo melbi} would be necessary for that. > > >> mi zanru le du'u melbi > >> >> > >> >> I approve of the fact that (something is) beautiful. > >> > > >> >No. "I approve of the proposition that something is beautiful". > >> > > >> >"the fact that" is better rendered by "le nu". > >> > >> I disagree, partly because I do not see any difference between the former > >> and the latter. > > > >Facts are true propositions. Propositions can be false. Facts > >can't. > > It sounds like you are saying that we have another bloogy sumti raising here > and that nu is no better than du'u. Are you saying that we need > > mi zanru lenu ledu'u broda cu jetnu > or of course > mi zanru tu'a ledu'u broda > ? Well, yes. But I think mi zanru lenu ledu'u broda cu jetnu is pretty much equivalent to mi zanru lenu broda > >x2 of djuno = fact = true proposition. > >du`u = proposition. > > But then here it seems that you are saying that the x2 of djuno must > similarly be marked: > > mi djuno lenu ledu'u broda cu jetnu > > because you have said that a mere ledu'u is not a true proposition. > But then a lenu ledu'u is not a true porposition either. {djuno ko`a} entails that ko`a is (a) a proposition, and (b) true. There is nothing wrong with {ko`a djuno le du`u broda}, but it claims that (a) ko`a believes le du`u broda, and (b) le du`u broda is true. [Yes yes yes I realize that (b) might in fact be a presupposition rather than a claim, but that's another story.] > If I approve of something, then I approve of it being a true > proposition. That's not *necessarily* so, unless you mean it as a claim about your personal approval criteria. > How does zanru differ from djuno? If I know something, then I know > that it is a true proposition. Not exactly: If you know something, then (a) it is true, and (b) you believe it to be true. I am not sure why {djuno} was made to be like {know} rather than {believe}, but that's pretty clearly how things are now. > >> Disambiguation is not necessary to those of us who appreciate complexity %^) > > > >If all readings are equally relevant then the addressee may > >conclude that all readings are intended. That is, that the > >speaker is actually communicating several different bridi > >simultaneously with the one jufra. > > No. One bridi. > > A complex bridi, to be sure, but using a logical connective for example > can turn multiple bridi into one bridi. OK. I'm not sure anything hinges on this. > Whne I use ka (without ce'u) I am focussing on relationships, not on things. See my remarks about distinguishing prescription from personal usage habits. > The properties (ka) of a proposition, are to me the relationships that make > the proposition meaningful. That sounds interesting, but I don't understand it. Could you try to say it again? --And