From pycyn@aol.com Wed Mar 14 08:55:31 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 14 Mar 2001 16:55:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 14630 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2001 16:55:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2001 16:55:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r19.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.73) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2001 17:56:34 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.88.3adc588 (6621) for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:55:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <88.3adc588.27e0fc71@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:55:13 EST
Subject: Train catching ut nunc
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_88.3adc588.27e0fc71_boundary"
Content-Disposition: Inline
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5835

           
--part1_88.3adc588.27e0fc71_boundary 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

xorxes:
<la xod cusku di'e

>If I pause my retelling of a story at the time right before
>a fight appears to break out, I don't see why my listeners should assume
>anything about whether or not the fight actually occurs.

They shouldn't. On the other hand, if you tell me "you know,
this morning Peter and Paul were on the verge of fighting
when the bell rang", then I will probably assume that the
fighting did not occur. Why? Because if it had occured, the
information you are giving me is fairly irrelevant, you
would have told me that they fought, not that they were on
the verge. It is nothing more than an assumption, of course,
based on the further assumption that your purpose in
telling me what you tell me is more than just uttering
true but uninformative or misleading statements. I will
assume that you are telling me the most relevant fact about
their fighting, and if being on the verge is the most
relevant then they probably did not actually fight.>

Beautiful! Welcome to the world of well formulated Gricean analysis.  All=20
factors present and accounted for.

ivan:
<The trouble is that _be on the verge of_ also means `come close to'
(suggesting `but not ...').=A0 (This is its usual interpretation in
a main clause as opposed to a subordinate one.)=A0 But if that's what
you mean, you should say so, and {pu'o} is not the way to say it.>

That completes the circle, since {pu'o} got into this discussion exactly to=
=20
deal with "come close to" in this sense when other notions seemed to be=20
getting away from the point.
So now we have three suggestions (have I missed any essentially different=20
ones?) for dealing with "I nearly caught the train" or "I barely caught the=
=20
train" and the like.
1) A tanru with {jibni} or the like.  Not {jibni snada} clearly, since  --=
=20
oh, the joys of a logical language! -- a {jibni snada} is still a {snada}. =
=20
So , {snada jibni} for "I almost made it" and converted form {jibni co snad=
a=20
tu'a le trene} for the full expression of a failure to catch the train. =
=20
(Note that we still need some Griceing here,since "coming near" does not=20
entail not actually reaching, but sure implicates the hell out of it).=20=20
2) {pu'o} and prayer. This works in isolation, given Gricean conventions, b=
ut=20
whenever some correlated event is mentioned, the implicature fades fast.  O=
n=20
the other hand, this form invites explanations of why you failed in exactly=
=20
those correlated events.  Of course, if you are not inclined to give an=20
explanation,...
3) Modified affirmatives or denials: {ja'a ru'e} and {na'e ru'e}.  Aside fr=
om=20
not being sure about the grammaticality of these (though they seem to pass=
=20
both parsers) there is the problem that the "near miss" or "near hit" part =
is=20
lost truth functionally.=20=20
"I just missed the train" can't be countered by "Bourgeous, boy, you were a=
=20
good five minutes late"), since CAI like its kin UI carries no assertion=20
value (it only expresses).=20=20

I guess that I reluctantly go for 1 in general, though I think that the oth=
er=20
have uses on specific occasions.=20

           
--part1_88.3adc588.27e0fc71_boundary 
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=3D=
2>xorxes:
<BR>&lt;la xod cusku di'e
<BR>
<BR>&gt;If I pause my retelling of a story at the time right before
<BR>&gt;a fight appears to break out, I don't see why my listeners should a=
ssume
<BR>&gt;anything about whether or not the fight actually occurs.
<BR>
<BR>They shouldn't. On the other hand, if you tell me "you know,
<BR>this morning Peter and Paul were on the verge of fighting
<BR>when the bell rang", then I will probably assume that the
<BR>fighting did not occur. Why? Because if it had occured, the
<BR>information you are giving me is fairly irrelevant, you
<BR>would have told me that they fought, not that they were on
<BR>the verge. It is nothing more than an assumption, of course,
<BR>based on the further assumption that your purpose in
<BR>telling me what you tell me is more than just uttering
<BR>true but uninformative or misleading statements. I will
<BR>assume that you are telling me the most relevant fact about
<BR>their fighting, and if being on the verge is the most
<BR>relevant then they probably did not actually fight.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Beautiful! Welcome to the world of well formulated Gricean analysis. &n=
bsp;All=20
<BR>factors present and accounted for.
<BR>
<BR>ivan:
<BR>&lt;The trouble is that _be on the verge of_ also means `come close to'
<BR>(suggesting `but not ...').=A0 (This is its usual interpretation in
<BR>a main clause as opposed to a subordinate one.)=A0 But if that's what
<BR>you mean, you should say so, and {pu'o} is not the way to say it.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>That completes the circle, since {pu'o} got into this discussion exactl=
y to=20
<BR>deal with "come close to" in this sense when other notions seemed to be=
=20
<BR>getting away from the point.
<BR>So now we have three suggestions (have I missed any essentially differe=
nt=20
<BR>ones?) for dealing with "I nearly caught the train" or "I barely caught=
 the=20
<BR>train" and the like.
<BR>1) A tanru with {jibni} or the like. &nbsp;Not {jibni snada} clearly, s=
ince &nbsp;--=20
<BR>oh, the joys of a logical language! -- a {jibni snada} is still a {snad=
a}. &nbsp;
<BR>So , {snada jibni} for "I almost made it" and converted form {jibni co =
snada=20
<BR>tu'a le trene} for the full expression of a failure to catch the train.=
 &nbsp;
<BR>(Note that we still need some Griceing here,since "coming near" does no=
t=20
<BR>entail not actually reaching, but sure implicates the hell out of it). =
&nbsp;
<BR>2) {pu'o} and prayer. This works in isolation, given Gricean convention=
s, but=20
<BR>whenever some correlated event is mentioned, the implicature fades fast=
. &nbsp;On=20
<BR>the other hand, this form invites explanations of why you failed in exa=
ctly=20
<BR>those correlated events. &nbsp;Of course, if you are not inclined to gi=
ve an=20
<BR>explanation,...
<BR>3) Modified affirmatives or denials: {ja'a ru'e} and {na'e ru'e}. &nbsp=
;Aside from=20
<BR>not being sure about the grammaticality of these (though they seem to p=
ass=20
<BR>both parsers) there is the problem that the "near miss" or "near hit" p=
art is=20
<BR>lost truth functionally. &nbsp;
<BR>"I just missed the train" can't be countered by "Bourgeous, boy, you we=
re a=20
<BR>good five minutes late"), since CAI like its kin UI carries no assertio=
n=20
<BR>value (it only expresses). &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>I guess that I reluctantly go for 1 in general, though I think that the=
 other=20
<BR>have uses on specific occasions.=20
<BR></FONT></HTML>
           
--part1_88.3adc588.27e0fc71_boundary--