From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Aug 30 17:29:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 31 Aug 2002 00:29:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 18262 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2002 00:29:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2002 00:29:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.138) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Aug 2002 00:29:12 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:29:11 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.58 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:29:11 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: The 16 propositional attitude predicates Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:29:11 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2002 00:29:11.0988 (UTC) FILETIME=[6DA02740:01C25085] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.58] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15302 There are 16 Lojban gismu that have a proposition (du'u) place, a place for an object which the proposition is about, and a place (or two places in the cases of {tugni} and {ctuca}) for a person with a given attitude towards that proposition. The 16 predicates are: djuno x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology x4 facki x1 discovers/finds out x2 (du'u) about subject/object x3 jimpe x1 understands/comprehends fact/truth x2 (du'u) about subject x3 morji x1 remembers/recalls/recollects x2 (du'u) about subject x3 tugni x1 agrees with person x2 that x3 (du'u) is true about matter x4 cilre x1 learns x2 (du'u) about subject x3 from source x4 by method x5 ctuca x1 teaches audience x2 ideas x3 (du'u) about x4 by method x5 krici x1 believes x2 (du'u) is true/assumed about subject x3 smadi x1 guesses/conjectures x2 (du'u) is true about subject x3 sruma x1 assumes/supposes that x2 (du'u) is true about subject x3 jijnu x1 intuits x2 (du'u) about subject x3 jdice x1 decides/makes decision x2 (du'u) about matter x3 jinvi x1 thinks/opines x2 (du'u) is true about x3 on grounds x4 xusra x1 asserts/claims/declares x2 (du'u) is true senpi x1 doubts/is skeptical/questions that x2 (du'u) is true birti x1 is certain/sure/positive/convinced that x2 is true The last three are missing the "about x3" place for some reason, but I think they do belong to this group. I think this is an exhaustive list, but I'd be greatful to know if I missed any other gismu in this class. Many of these predicates tend to be misused in Lojban, for example many of us tend to say {mi morji le nu mi klama le zarci} "I remember my going to the market" when we should say, for example {mi morji le du'u vo'i fasnu kei le nu mi klama le zarci} "I remember (that it happened) about my going to the market". Not to mention things like {mi cilre la lojban}, {mi djuno la djan}, {mi jimpe le nabmi}, etc. It is possible to get the meaning we want (or something close enough) if we use the x3 for the object and fill x2 with "all the relevant facts": mi cilre fi la lojban: I learn (all the relevant facts about) Lojban. I learn Lojban. mi djuno fi la djan I know (all the relevant facts about) John. I know John. mi jimpe fi le nabmi I understand (all the relevant facts about) the problem. I understand the problem. So it would seem that having "all the relevant facts" as a sort default for x2 might be a useful thing. (In the case of {krici} "all the relevant facts" are "that it exists", so that {mi krici fi ko'a} would mean that I believe in ko'a, i.e. I believe that ko'a exists.) What happens if we put a proposition (du'u) in x3? That is reasonable too, because propositions are valid topics for other propositions. So for example: mi djuno le du'u jetnu kei le du'u la djan klama le zarci I know (that it is true) that John goes to the market. I know that John goes to the market. So, given that we can use x3 for everything, including propositions, the reasonable thing would seem to be to always use x3, which we can't go wrong with, and forget about x2. Indeed people already do that in usage, as half the time we forget to restrict the sense of many of these words to be purely propositional attitudes, except that we don't mark it as x3. That means that in practice we are simplifying the place structure to "x1 remembers fact /situation/object x2", "x1 understands fact/situation/object x2", "x1 discovers fact/situation/object x2", etc. Should we actively promote this "mistake" of always ignoring x2? The advantages are clear: we get broader and much more useful predicates. Are there disadvantages? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com