From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Apr 08 17:26:06 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 44060 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2005 00:26:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Apr 2005 00:26:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2005 00:26:05 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DK3nY-0000mF-5B for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:26:04 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DK3mv-0000lo-Gm; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:25:27 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DK3mj-0000lf-I4 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:25:13 -0700 Received: from web81304.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.79]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DK3mg-0000l5-HB for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:25:13 -0700 Message-ID: <20050409002439.34810.qmail@web81304.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:24:39 PDT Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:24:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9799 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: Denoting counterfactual sentences in Lojban? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24155 Exppanding a bit --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 05:54:33PM -0400, Ben > Goertzel wrote: > > Hopefully someone on this list can clear > things up for me. I have > > one significant question -- how to represent > hypothetical > > sentences > > da'i, or put it in an abstraction; all > abstractions are technically > non-veridical. Well, {da'i} introduces the hypothesis and thus starts a hypothetical context; it is a sort of "if", in a word. Thaat doesn't seem to be what is wanted here and, indeed, it is a little hard to call it hypothetical for just that reason. The suggestion to put it into abstract form, {nu} or {du'u}, is a good one except that it is hard to see what the appropriate sentences would be; what selbri goes with the abstract sumti. I think the problem is that the sort of analysis being proposed here just doesn't work very well at the meaning level in Lojban (or English either, for that matter). To be sure, on a lot of grammars, these underlying sentences would have some grammatical existence but they would never surface as sentences independently -- mainly just because they are subordinate in non-assertive contexts and it is hard to assert non-assertive sentences. Maybe, add a "possibly" in front and then say that so-and-so assumes or knows "actually." By the way, if Zhang knows that someting is the case, the it is the case, so for that you have an assertable sentence. Of course all of that is ultimately burtied in another nonassertive context, so can't be assetrted after all. > > First, consider Exercise 7, part 2: > > > > "Susan assumes that Zhang knows that Susan is > late." > > la .susan. sruma lo du'u la .zang. djuno lo > du'u la .susan. lerci > > > The translation given in the answer key is: > > > > .i la suzyn. sruma lenu la jan. djuno lenu > lerci fa lenu la suzyn. > > klama > > Whether to use nu or du'u is stylistic, for the > most part, in this > case. Well, knowing a state of affairs doesn't make a lot of sense, nor does assuming one. I would think {du'u} is pretty standard for both of these. > > Now, this is OK but personally I find it a > bit annoying. I found > > myself wanting to do instead something like > > > > .i lenu la suzyn. klama cu lerci ("The > event of Susan coming is late") > > .i la jan jimpe go'i ("Zhang knows the > previous.") > > .i la suzyn. sruma lenu go'i ("Susan > assumes the previous.") > > > > or else replacing the last of the three > sentences with > > You're certainly welcome to if you like. It > seems obnoxiously > verbose to me, however. And, of course, says something different from the original as presented. Which is why you want somrthing for marking non-assertive sentences (not exactly hypotheticals). > > .i ra srumo lenu go'i (using "ra" to refer to > "Susan", pretty > > obviously in context) > > Use "sy" to refer to Susan. > > > However, I don't yet know how to mark the > second utterance in this > > chain as hypothetical, so that the listener > knows I don't really > > believe Zhang knows the previous, I'm just > saying that Susan > > assumes so. IN other words, I want to say > > > > .i la jan HYP jimpe go'i ("Zhang knows the > previous.") > > da'i > > Alos pe'i, ti'a, .ia. Probably some others. These are evidentials; they don't interfere with the assertiveness of the sentence they occur in but they indicate a measure of uncertainty (or certainty) which opens an out if the sentence proves to be false after all. They are not quite what is needed (but I am not sure there is something for what is needed here). > > I don't like > > > > .i la lojban HYP mintu le glibau > > > > because this is a posited equivalence between > two entities of > > different types, it seems semantically > incorrect even though it > > may (?) be syntactically allowable. > > You mean because it equates a cmene and a > lujvo? It doesn't matter; > they are both names, because of la. It's the > referents that matter. > > gliban, btw. > Or, for that matter, {la inglic} or with one or more /i/ replaced by /e/.