From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Dec 01 14:13:59 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:13:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18IcLZ-00086o-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:13:53 -0800
Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-55-157.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.55.157])
	by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E98A3CF43
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Sun,  1 Dec 2002 23:13:21 +0100 (MET)
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Specific example of Sapir-Whorf in English OR How Lojban  made me think more clearly
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:15:28 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMKENLGPAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <20021201171313.GA25407@allusion.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
X-archive-position: 2822
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Jordan:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 03:04:48PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote:
> > Actually, I think that what we're trying to express here is deontic
> > modality, so you could say "nomu'eiku lo nanmu cu gletu lo nanmu",
> > understanding no to be quantifying over worlds where the rule is
> > followed. If we had a way to explicitly note that mu'ei is deontic,
> > we might also be able to note which rule or rule system is used 
[...]
> mu'ei could do it, but I hope that if mu'ei becomes official it
> either (a) gets moved to MOI or something so it can allow specifying
> the type of modality, or (b) it gets pinned down to epistemological
> modality in all circumstances 
> 
> The problem with (a) is that we lose the ability to do forethought
> with it, and to use it in sumti tcita.  Instead it would always
> have to be at the main brivla (or just in front of it).  So I'd
> probably prefer (b), perhaps with the use of other mu'ei-like cmavo
> for different concepts of necessity (perhaps ma'ei for moral
> necessity?) 

I would tend to use {bilga} for deontic modality. For the reasons
you cite, mu'ei is better in ROI, but I guess there is a case for
a counterpart in MOI which would allow for different sorts of
modality to be expressed, either by a sumti or by a tanru formation.
If there is resistance to adding extra cmavo, I guess one could
use a lujvo, so that PA+MOI > lujvo li PA.

--And.