From pycyn@aol.com Sun Apr 22 08:45:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 22 Apr 2001 15:45:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 94696 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2001 15:45:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Apr 2001 15:45:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r15.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.69) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Apr 2001 15:45:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.9.) id r.8b.56979df (3700) for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8b.56979df.2814569a@aol.com> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:45:30 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] conditionals in Lojban To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8b.56979df.2814569a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6808 --part1_8b.56979df.2814569a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/22/2001 7:25:08 AM Central Daylight Time, Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de writes: > 1) "I was (or had been etc.) obliged/forced etc. to do something" (and hence > did it) > 2) "I should/ought have done something (in the past)" (which I actually > didn't do and now am regretting missing it). > > Something like {.ei.oi mi pu ...} seems to be ambiguous: am I regretful for > having been obliged/forced to do something I didn't want > to (but actually did) or for not doing it (and now thinking that "I should > have done it")? > > The problem seemingly arises from the fact that {.ei} (like other cmavo of > that kind) refers to the *speaker* at the time of his > utterance and not to the time the uttered took place. > Because referring to the speaker, a second problem seems to derive from: > How can it be expressed if the "I" is replaced by "you" or > any sumti not referring to the speaker? > > 1) "They had to do ... (and therefore did) > 2) "You should have done ...", "They shouldn't have done ..." (but > didn't/but did) > > I checked the Book for it, but - drowned in details on attitudinals etc. - > couldn't get an answer. Also, as far I remember the threads > At least a part of a short answer to your problem seems to be a confusion (which the Book does not always alleviate though it is a problem known from day 2 of Loglan) between expressing and asserting. The UI attitudinals are there to express the emotions, etc., the speaker is undergoing at the moment. They do not assert that he is undergoing them. If he uses a UI for an attitude he does not have, he is not lying (though he may, of course, be misleading or insincere or... -- but that may even be acceptable). On the other hand, there is a set of attitudinal brivla (which oddly do not match the UI very well) which can be used to assert that some one (speaker or not) is or did or will have a certain attitude. For as long as I have been involved with Loglan/Lojban, people have regularly used UI for assertions and frequently assertions for UI, to the great detriment of clear thinking and clear writing. The fact is that English uses the same words -- even the same first-person expressions -- for both, and most other languages do something at least similar. Figure out what you mean and then say that in Lojban; most problems disappear then (though there are some hard cases. I take your cases to be 1. mi pu bilga lenu zukte .i mi djica lenu mi u zukte. 2. .u'u (maybe .uinai) mi na pu zukte 1' ko'a pu bilga le nu zukte 2' do [] The [] is a real problem: what goes in here depends upon the nature of the "should" - contractual or moral obligation or practical considerations. Only the first of these is covered by {bilga} in an obvious way. --part1_8b.56979df.2814569a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/22/2001 7:25:08 AM Central Daylight Time,
Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de writes:

1) "I was (or had been etc.) obliged/forced etc. to do something" (and hence
did it)
2) "I should/ought have done something (in the past)" (which I actually
didn't do and now am regretting missing it).

Something like {.ei.oi mi pu ...} seems to be ambiguous: am I regretful for
having been obliged/forced to do something I didn't want
to (but actually did) or for not doing it (and now thinking that "I should
have done it")?

The problem seemingly arises from the fact that {.ei} (like other cmavo of
that kind) refers to the *speaker* at the time of his
utterance and not to the time the uttered took place.
Because referring to the speaker, a second problem seems to derive from:
How can it be expressed if the "I" is replaced by "you" or
any sumti not referring to the speaker?

1) "They had to do ... (and therefore did)
2) "You should have done ...", "They shouldn't have done ..." (but
didn't/but did)

I checked the Book for it, but - drowned in details on attitudinals etc. -
couldn't get an answer. Also, as far I remember the threads
here, this issue hadn't been discussed in the forum.

At least a part of a short answer to your problem seems to be a confusion
(which the Book does not always alleviate though it is a problem known from
day 2 of Loglan) between expressing and asserting. The UI attitudinals are
there to express the emotions, etc., the speaker is undergoing at the moment.
They do not assert that he is undergoing them. If he uses a UI for an
attitude he does not have, he is not lying (though he may, of course, be
misleading or insincere or... -- but that may even be acceptable). On the
other hand, there is a set of attitudinal brivla (which oddly do not match
the UI very well) which can be used to assert that some one (speaker or not)
is or did or will have a certain attitude. For as long as I have been
involved with Loglan/Lojban, people have regularly used UI for assertions and
frequently assertions for UI, to the great detriment of clear thinking and
clear writing. The fact is that English uses the same words -- even the same
first-person expressions -- for both, and most other languages do something
at least similar. Figure out what you mean and then say that in Lojban; most
problems disappear then (though there are some hard cases. I take your cases
to be
1. mi pu bilga lenu zukte .i mi djica lenu mi u zukte.
2. .u'u (maybe .uinai) mi na pu zukte
1' ko'a pu bilga le nu zukte
2' do []

The [] is a real problem: what goes in here depends upon the nature of the
"should" - contractual or moral obligation or practical considerations. Only
the first of these is covered by {bilga} in an obvious way. --part1_8b.56979df.2814569a_boundary--