From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 24 12:15:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 19:15:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 57552 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 19:14:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 19:14:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 19:14:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.116.3bc48c0 (3980) for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <116.3bc48c0.28b80189@aol.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:14:17 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_116.3bc48c0.28b80189_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10052 --part1_116.3bc48c0.28b80189_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/24/2001 12:02:09 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > while {si'o} belongs with {nu} and {li'i} as concrete real world=20 > #(whatever that may be) events.=20=20 >=20 > Not in actual usage, AFAICS.=20 >=20 there isn't enough actual usage to tell much and what little there is is=20 unclear, open to any of the available interpretations. I think the=20 "individual mental event" reading works best in most cases and not too badl= y=20 in all.=20=20 The lorryload of {ce'u} only arise with your (or whosever) convention, the= =20 {nu}+ appropriate-cognitive-predicate-{le du'u} assumes that {si'o} is=20 propositional, which does not seem to be guaranteed (or, indeed, even=20 suggested) by the glosses. And is there an appropriate predicate? Your=20 {ka}-{du'u} reading can be done with better conventions about {ka} and {du'= u}=20 (and Lord knows there are enough offered for your choice.) <.=A0 To put {si'o} in with {ka} is either to=20 #make all thought abstract and impersonal or all semantics concrete and=20 #personal, neither very useful ideas in the long run (monism or solipsism).= =A0=20 I don't think so. Why would "(nu) -appropriate-cognitive-predicate loi du'u= " do this any more than li'i-like si'o?> If {si'o}, a person's ideas, are {ka}-like then they are functions of some= =20 sort, not events at all -- the events being at most function detectors, lik= e=20 observed colors are function detectors for say {ka ce'u xunre} and reality = is=20 thus all in the uniform metalanguage. On the other hand, if the proposal i= s=20 to make {ka} and the like just like {si'o}, personal mental events, the all= =20 is reduced to the contents of an individual consciousness, my experiences,= =20 say. Since nu-appropriate-cognitive-predicate doesn't do anything here, it= =20 doesn't solve the issue. --part1_116.3bc48c0.28b80189_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/24/2001 12:02:09 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


while {si'o} belongs with= {nu} and {li'i} as concrete real world=20
#(whatever that may be) events.  

Not in actual usage, AFAICS.=20


there isn't enough actual usage to tell much and what little there is i= s=20
unclear, open to any of the available interpretations.  I think th= e=20
"individual mental event" reading works best in most cases and not too = badly=20
in all.  

<Given its gloss and its membership in NU, there are two sensical
interpretations of si'o. One where it belongs with du'u and ka,
and one where it belongs with li'i. The intepretations are incompatible= ;
one must go. Your li'i reading can be done with=20
"(nu) -appropriate-cognitive-predicate loi du'u". The du'u/ka
reading can be done with du'u/ka and a lorryload of ce'u.
I prefer to express the li'i reading using cog-pred loi du'u, and
be able to avoid the lorryload of ce'u.>

The lorryload of {ce'u} only arise with your (or whosever) convention, = the=20
{nu}+ appropriate-cognitive-predicate-{le du'u} assumes that {si'o} is= =20
propositional, which does not seem to be guaranteed (or, indeed, even=20
suggested) by the glosses.  And is there an appropriate predicate?=  Your=20
{ka}-{du'u} reading can be done with better conventions about {ka} and = {du'u}=20
(and Lord knows there are enough offered for your choice.)

<.=A0 To put {si'o} in with {ka} is either to=20
#make all thought abstract and impersonal or all semantics concrete and= =20
#personal, neither very useful ideas in the long run (monism or solipsi= sm).=A0=20

I don't think so. Why would "(nu) -appropriate-cognitive-predicate loi = du'u"
do this any more than li'i-like si'o?>

If {si'o}, a person's ideas, are {ka}-like then they are functions of s= ome=20
sort, not events at all -- the events being at most function detectors,= like=20
observed colors are function detectors for say {ka ce'u xunre} and real= ity is=20
thus all in the uniform metalanguage.  On the other hand, if the p= roposal is=20
to make {ka} and the like just like {si'o}, personal mental events, the= all=20
is reduced to the contents of an individual consciousness, my experienc= es,=20
say.  Since nu-appropriate-cognitive-predicate doesn't do anything= here, it=20
doesn't solve the issue.

--part1_116.3bc48c0.28b80189_boundary--