From sentto-44114-20035-1054378660-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat May 31 03:58:20 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 31 May 2003 03:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n24.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.80]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19M43w-0007Ec-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 31 May 2003 03:58:12 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-20035-1054378660-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 May 2003 10:57:41 -0000 X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 34583 invoked from network); 31 May 2003 10:57:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 May 2003 10:57:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 May 2003 10:57:40 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-57-138.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.57.138]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154F73CF1D for ; Sat, 31 May 2003 12:57:38 +0200 (MEST) To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <006301c3268e$d441cf00$fe7aa8c0@ONEOF> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 11:57:40 +0100 Subject: [lojban] Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation (was: RE: taksi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 X-archive-position: 5532 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 Stefan: > Craig (??) wrote: > > I think a taksi, like a taxi, is a vehicle for transporting people > > Thus, it taksi if it is carrying me to my destination, looking for a > > fare, or parked in the garage while its owner sleeps. In fact, if > > business is slow and it has never had a fare, and the cabbie is not > > persistent so it never will have a fare, I'd say it can *still* be a > > taxi. But if I buy the cab off of em and use it as a more normal karce, > > it has mo'u taksi. Of course, all of this assumes we decide that taxi is > > gismu-worthy, which I certainly don't buy. But it applies equally well to > > lo taksike or whatever lujvo you come up with > > and And. wrote: > > Certainly you are correct for any brivla that translates the word > > "taxi" in English and other languages. So setting aside whether > > there should be another brivla meaning "x1 is a taxi1 carrying > > passenger x2 for fare x3", we can say that there is a demonstrable > > need for a brivla meaning "x1 is a taxi2 *FOR* carrying passenger x2 > > for fare x3". (...) > > na'isai ;) > > As somebody said: brivla are not tense specific. This also means that > brivla are not specific concerning CA'A. So even if a taxi never had a > passenger it is "innately capable" (= {ka'e}) of having one and is > therefore a taxi. So what you want is already there The point about unspecified tense and CAhA-modality is a red-herring as annoying as it is frequent. "ko'a broda" expresses a truth-evaluable proposition only once the tense and modality has been added. So when, in discussing Lojban, we ask "Is {ko'a broda} true?" or "Is ko'a a broda?", we take for granted a given tense and modality. If we really have to go to the effort of preempting the red-herring then replace all occurrences of "taxi" by "ca ca'a taxi". As for the ka'e taxi, the semantics of CAhA are currently unclear; it is something the BF will need to rule on. It is by no means established that the "innately capable" gloss is consistent with the rest of what is said about CAhA. (The alternative interpretation of "ka'e" is, roughly, "could be/could have been".) Still, whichever meaning {ka'e} has, I don't think "that which is innately capable of being a taxi carrying a passenger for a fare" or "that which could be/could have been a taxi carrying a passenger for a fare" is an adequate rendition of English "taxi". It is far too broad. There is no escaping the purposive element of "for" in the sense of words like "taxi" and "knife". That is, these are categories partly defined by their purposes. --And. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get a FREE REFINANCE QUOTE - click here! http://us.click.yahoo.com/2CXtTB/ca0FAA/ySSFAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/