From cowan@ccil.org Sun May 04 13:51:59 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 4 May 2003 20:51:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 84022 invoked from network); 4 May 2003 20:51:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 May 2003 20:51:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 May 2003 20:51:59 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19CQSk-0006Ts-00; Sun, 04 May 2003 16:51:58 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 16:51:58 -0400 To: oskar2379 Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Some ideas/questions (long) Message-ID: <20030504205158.GF28808@ccil.org> References: <20030504154745.GX28808@ccil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=212516 X-Yahoo-Profile: johnwcowan X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19594 oskar2379 scripsit: > Well, we _could_ pin it down, but with a cmavo, not another place in > the predicate (assuming lojban has a cmavo for 'by means of' > or 'using method...'). It does, but those cmavo are derived from gismu places! > But there must be some pattern that that everything follows. I just don't believe that. > You're right, mamta should be parent-female :) > Maybe that will be the first thing I try to do...split gismu up. It > will take a while but I'm only 16 so I have a lot of time. Fire away. > But x4 seems to just serve to narrow it down, as if x1 *only* > responds this way under these circumstances. x1 on the other hand is > essential; its the agent (I'm not sure if this is the right term...I > have never taken a linguistics class). x1 is the agent, indeed. But I am pointing out that what you think essential and what you think inessential is a product of your worldview. Quine shows that if you replace the denotation of all terms systematically with their complements (so that the term "Oskar" which previously denoted Oskar now means the-entire-universe-except-Oskar), everything works fine: all true statements remain true and all false ones false. More generally, a (first-order) theory cannot compel the domain of interpretation: every first-order theory has an interpretation in which all the terms refer solely to integers! > But it gets even more confusing because x4 implies that x1's response > is habitual; x1 *habitually* reacts this way under these > circumstances. Possibly but not necessarily. If you mean that, use the "habitual" tense cmavo. For a counterexample, consider the case in which I (x1) remain silent (x2) while being tickled (x3) when I am trying to hide (x4). This is definitely not my habitual response to being tickled! > 'the image of a cat'. The word 'of' usually implies association, as > if it were a *part* of the cat. The "of" in this case is just part of the grammatical machinery of English, sort of equivalent to Lojban "be". When I speak of "the mother of John", I don't imply that John's mother is part of John. Alternatively, you wind up saying that everything John stands in relation to is part of John, which reduces the idea of "part" to a nullity. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all. There are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit