From pycyn@aol.com Fri Oct 12 06:11:14 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0); 12 Oct 2001 13:11:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 60904 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2001 13:11:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Oct 2001 13:11:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 12 Oct 2001 13:11:09 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
	by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.106.6f482b0 (4007)
	 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:11:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <106.6f482b0.28f845e9@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:11:05 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] "knowledge as to who saw who" readings
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_106.6f482b0.28f845e9_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11528

           
--part1_106.6f482b0.28f845e9_boundary 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 10/11/2001 11:14:36 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


> la pycyn cusku di'e
>=20
> >I don't understand what bamboozlement you are talking about. 'a=3Db' tel=
ls us
> >that the thing called  by the name 'a' is identical with the thing calle=
d=20
> >by
> >the name 'b,' that is, that they are the same thing, despite their names=
.
>=20
> I think that would have to be {zo ko'a dunli zo ko'e le ka ce'u
> sinxa makau}. It's a claim about the references more than about
>=20

Well, that will do, too.  But the first does this very nicely -- see Frege=
=20
again, who, alas, did not write in Lojban, but the translations work just t=
he=20
same.

<Consider another relationship: {ko'a pendo ko'e}. In order to properly
understand and evaluate that claim it is first necessary to identify
the referents of {ko'a} and {ko'e}. Of course, the claim can also be
used to identify the referent of {ko'a} if we already know what
the referent of {ko'e} is and we know who are ko'e's friends. But
this second use is accidental, it's like getting to the meaning of
the sentence through a backdoor. Answering {ko'a ki'a} with
{ko'a pendo ko'e} will work pragmatically, but it gives me the
creeps logically. The same applies to using {ko'a du ko'e} for
that purpose.>

I don't get the point of this analogy: what is analogous to what? How does=
=20
this say anything about identity?  Using {ko'V}, which have no sense to spe=
ak=20
of and out of context precious little in usable reference either makes it=20
hard to see what you intend to have going on.  Imagine staring a conversati=
on=20
wiht "It is the same as her" and expecting anyone to make sense of it (no=20
gestures  allowed, even).  The point of {abu du by}, where it is assumed th=
at=20
both of these already have some significance to the speaker and hearer, is=
=20
that the two things known separately are in fact one.  Similarly, if we kno=
w=20
who ko'a and ko'e are, finding out that the one is friend of the other is=20
interesting new informatation.  In neither case is it meant to help us=20
identify those involved, if that is the point you are trying to make.  This=
=20
is logical identity, not computer variable assignment here.  If I sorta=20
understand what you are vaguely trying to say.

<I wish you would give Lojban examples. I know this can cause
ambiguity in English, but I thought Lojban was good precisely
at sorting these things out.>

Well, since I don't think the English is ambiguous (betweeen what and what,=
=20
by the way?) and think that Lojban reads exactly the same (note thatI did=20
not, in fact, use English but symbols), I don't see how Lojban provides a=20
solution to whatever problem you have made here.

<

=A0=A0 su'o da poi grute ku'o su'o de poi pelxu zo'u da du de
=A0=A0 For some x which is a fruit and some y which is yellow, x=3Dy.

Is that about reference?>

Yep; it says that the two approaches end up referring to the same thing.



           
--part1_106.6f482b0.28f845e9_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>In a message dated 10/11/2001 11:14:36 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambi=
as@hotmail.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">la pycyn cusku di'e
<BR>
<BR>&gt;I don't understand what bamboozlement you are talking about. 'a=3Db=
' tells us
<BR>&gt;that the thing called &nbsp;by the name 'a' is identical with the t=
hing called=20
<BR>&gt;by
<BR>&gt;the name 'b,' that is, that they are the same thing, despite their =
names.
<BR>
<BR>I think that would have to be {zo ko'a dunli zo ko'e le ka ce'u
<BR>sinxa makau}. It's a claim about the references more than about
<BR>the referents.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>Well, that will do, too. &nbsp;But the first does this very nicely -- s=
ee Frege again, who, alas, did not write in Lojban, but the translations wo=
rk just the same.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Consider another relationship: {ko'a pendo ko'e}. In order to prope=
rly
<BR>understand and evaluate that claim it is first necessary to identify
<BR>the referents of {ko'a} and {ko'e}. Of course, the claim can also be
<BR>used to identify the referent of {ko'a} if we already know what
<BR>the referent of {ko'e} is and we know who are ko'e's friends. But
<BR>this second use is accidental, it's like getting to the meaning of
<BR>the sentence through a backdoor. Answering {ko'a ki'a} with
<BR>{ko'a pendo ko'e} will work pragmatically, but it gives me the
<BR>creeps logically. The same applies to using {ko'a du ko'e} for
<BR>that purpose.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>I don't get the point of this analogy: what is analogous to what? How d=
oes this say anything about identity? &nbsp;Using {ko'V}, which have no sen=
se to speak of and out of context precious little in usable reference eithe=
r makes it hard to see what you intend to have going on. &nbsp;Imagine star=
ing a conversation wiht "It is the same as her" and expecting anyone to mak=
e sense of it (no gestures &nbsp;allowed, even). &nbsp;The point of {abu du=
 by}, where it is assumed that both of these already have some significance=
 to the speaker and hearer, is that the two things known separately are in =
fact one. &nbsp;Similarly, if we know who ko'a and ko'e are, finding out th=
at the one is friend of the other is interesting new informatation. &nbsp;I=
n neither case is it meant to help us identify those involved, if that is t=
he point you are trying to make. &nbsp;This is logical identity, not comput=
er variable assignment here. &nbsp;If I sorta understand what you are vague=
ly trying to say.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;I wish you would give Lojban examples. I know this can cause
<BR>ambiguity in English, but I thought Lojban was good precisely
<BR>at sorting these things out.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Well, since I don't think the English is ambiguous (betweeen what and w=
hat, by the way?) and think that Lojban reads exactly the same (note thatI =
did not, in fact, use English but symbols), I don't see how Lojban provides=
 a solution to whatever problem you have made here.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;
<BR>
<BR>=A0=A0 su'o da poi grute ku'o su'o de poi pelxu zo'u da du de
<BR>=A0=A0 For some x which is a fruit and some y which is yellow, x=3Dy.
<BR>
<BR>Is that about reference?&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Yep; it says that the two approaches end up referring to the same thing=
.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
           
--part1_106.6f482b0.28f845e9_boundary--