Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:16:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802271916.OAA06383@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Meaning of BAI tags X-To: cbogart@QUETZAL.COM X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: e3cca367951cd63ba5dfe0d50c79f431 Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 02 13:39:19 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - > sy. tanru cu'u xorxes > 1) S is a tanru, spoken by Jorge > 2) S is a tanru, according to Jorge > >I think that's more than a doubt about the precise definition of cu'u, it's a >--More-- > question about >BAI tags in general. The first option leaves the truth of the proposition in > place and adds >extra information; the second more fundamentally changes the meaning as if >cu'u > were >actually the main verb and tanru were part of an abstraction (i.e. lenu sy. > tanru kei se >cusku xy.) "spoken by" would be cu'u "according to" would be du'o Both change the truth value. If you add the cu'u and it was NOT said by Jorge, then a true proposition becomes false If you add du'o and Jorge doesn't "know" it (i.e. is not a valid source under any circumstances) then it becomes false. Many if not most BAIs add a subordinate implication of some sort. Sometimes,a sentence can be true with a BAI that would not be true without the BAI. >More examples: > sy. tanru va'o my. > 1) S is a tanru, and the conditions surrounding the fact of its > tanrueity are M > 2) S is a tanru, at least under conditions M > > la .erik limna bai la rabyn. > 1) Robin forces Erik to swim > 2) *Robin forces that Erik would swim (somehow implying that Robin > forces, > but Erik might not swim) > > la selbarna cu mlatu du'u la .and. >--More-- > 1) Spot is a cat; And knows that > 2) Spot is the cat that And knows I think that in all of these, #1 is the one that is implied. Specifying a BAI adds its place to the main bridi such that the BAI-added place bceomes "metaphysically necessary" to the concept. >I prefer the interpretation where {Prop BAI Sumti} implies {Prop}, but that > would mean >we have to be very careful with sentences like: > > Sy. mlatu fi'o selje'u my. > ...which under my proposal would mean: > 1) S is a cat, and that's true under epistemology M > ...but not: > 2) S is considered a cat under epistemology M (but maybe not under my >own > epist). I think #2 is themeaning. #1 seems to be a coordinate and not a subordinate claim. For purposes of software analysis, I think you can always analyze a given BAI member the same way, but there is no universal treatement that will apply to all members of BAI. (I am a bit soft on that "always" in the first clause) lojbab