From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Mar 28 06:25:35 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:25:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FOF8F-0004cE-NL for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:25:15 -0800 Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FOF8E-0004c7-B0 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:25:15 -0800 Received: (qmail 83607 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Mar 2006 14:25:12 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=wVgKmFkkurKZth0v5KCLtfAVdc1UBkhi6ACcuT3sJLGqQ/hdPv23gfuph/XWewAt5iskVAka4sbn2LuFFQlAGX+8v+I40gkxntcrTH292lXS/PUZmpIFpc6BY6qFTjTjI1Y+C64I5zchKb6GeKjJrB2yuxA3tC2PkDAL9obwR5Q= ; Message-ID: <20060328142512.83605.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.183.14] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:25:12 PST Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:25:12 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: semantic primes can define anything To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560603280527s526a54farf7764b58bee43a7f@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11263 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 Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 3/27/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > As > > for evidence, it is even more common to ask > for > > it for beliefs (I am not sure why, since I > don't > > generally get the belief/opinion distinction > > apparently being mae here) and yet {krici} > > explicitly denies the possibility of asking > for > > grounds. > > As I recall, it was clarified at some point > that the > "[without evidence]" of {krici} was really > meant to be > "[not necessarily with evidence]". So the difference between {krici} and {jinvi} is the evidence place? > > > More > > > commonly, I can think of a person for > example > > > without > > > thinking anything in particular about them. > > > > What would that be like (Okay, since you do > it, > > is that like)? The closest I come that I can > > remember is a mental picture of the person > out of > > context. This is rare for me, since I am not > > very visual, so generally I think of a person > in > > a situation. > > What about thinking of a number, or of the > colour red, > or of the word "red". Can you manage to think > of one of > those without having to think some proposition > about > them? I don't think so, unless you mean forming a picture and even that seem to be propositional to me (being unvisual). > > > > > No, I think pensi is fine as it is, but > > > that it is not for opinions. > > > > I agree, since it does not carry affirmation. > > I wouldn't say opinion carries affirmation > either, although > perhaps it would be necessary to clarify what > each of us > means by affirmation. In my view, affirmation > is only possible > with an audience, whereas opinion does not need > an audience. > I can have an opinion and never express it, but > I cannot > make an affirmation without expressing > something. I just mean the part about "is true about" in the definition of {jinvi} and {krici}. The interesting thinking and THINK is precisely cases where no such imputation is involved -- indeed, often, it is denied. > > The question is whether it is propositional. > I > > gather you would say not or at least not > > necessarily. > > Right, the object of {pensi} may but need not > have propositional > content. > > > > mi pensi lo nu mi te vecnu lo karce > > > I am thinking of (I am considering) > buying a > > > car. > > > > Good. Wondering then can be thinking about > a(n > > indirect) question. > > Yes. That would be more specifically {kucli}, > but {pensi} should > be able to cover it too. The point being that once we get something that takes propositional content, we can do away with many of the special epistemic predicates, or at least define them internally. > > Opining is thinking about > > something and affirming it, claiming it to be > > true extramentally. > > I don't think so. I think having an opinion is > not extramental, > and I think {jinvi} indicates having an > opinion, not expressing it. > Affirming something would be {xusra}. This is, as you suggest, just a different sense of affirmation. Having the opinion is not extramental but to be an opinion it must involve reference to an extramental situation (except, of course, opinions about mental situations). > > And so on. So we could use {pensi} as a > base. > > {pensi} lacks the belief component of {jinvi}, > so you would > need some other way to get that in, either > {jinvi} or {krici} or > something else. The belief component is what I called affirmation, I think. Yes, that has to be added, like the truth component to get {djuno} -- actually that requires both. The compounding might get a bit tricky if we are being formulaic in our lujvo building, but it seems feasible. (Not that we will do this in the language, but it is a step toward a Lojban-Lojban dictionary. And it helps -- I think -- clarify THINK.) To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.