From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Mar 27 14:01:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 33805 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2006 22:01:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m34.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Mar 2006 22:01:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2006 22:01:39 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNzmL-0007qi-3v for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:01:37 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNzlW-0007q8-UM; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:00:47 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:00:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNzl7-0007po-3o for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:00:21 -0800 Received: from web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.117]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNzl5-0007pg-UV for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:00:20 -0800 Received: (qmail 55651 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Mar 2006 22:00:13 -0000 Message-ID: <20060327220012.55642.qmail@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.183.14] by web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:00:12 PST Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:00:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <925d17560603271315gd1d2807ga19b76c54174030a@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: 11261 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: semantic primes can define anything X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=buCuEbNfLS5mCcmdLXq5CzXF2MUt3RkKSsJpNN7IV57E_YTVyw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25671 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 3/27/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > --- Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > > On 3/27/06, John E Clifford: > > > > > > > > I have always thought the "opinion" part > of > > > > {jinvi} was peripheral in a sense; > > > > > > Given the x4 of {jinvi} (the "grounds") it > is > > > hard to see how it could be peripheral. > > > > Well, since opinions don't require evidence, > I > > never could get those two together. > > Perhaps opinions don't require evidence, but it > is at least > not unusual, when someone offers an opinion, to > ask for the > grounds on which it is based. OTOH, asking what > grounds > one has for thinking about someone, for > example, sounds > just bizarre. > > Also "opine" is given as the gloss for {jinvi} > and "opinion" > for the x2, so opinion does seem to be the > intended central > meaning of {jinvi}. Maybe, but it also seems the only thing available (and poorly at that)for just simple thinking, contemplating a propositions, as I would say. 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. I am rapidly coming (back to, I notice) the idea that the mental activities portion of Lojban semantics is in almost as bad shape as several others. It is, alas, too late to do a thorough overhaul but working out how to say the missing pieces might be nice (and getting rid of those unmarked opaques would be useful, too). > > > mi pensi lo nu lo xarju cu vofli > > > I think of an event of pigs flying. > > > > But what do you think of it? This always > seems > > elliptical to me. > > I can think of flying pigs without thinking > anything of it, > and I don't think this is a special ability of > mine. 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. But of course, a mental picture is also a situation "so-and-so looks like this" or some such. > > > > Or > > > > do you want that {pensi2} is for > > > propositional > > > > content (which would eliminate a raft of > > > > problems)? > > > > > > No, I think pensi is fine as it is, but > that it > > > is not for opinions. I agree, since it does not carry affirmation. The question is whether it is propositional. I gather you would say not or at least not necessarily. > > I didn't say anything about opinions: I can > think > > content without necessarily affirming it > (indeed, > > the need for that other pattern is why I have > > trouble with {jinvi} as opinion). > > I don't see a problem with using {pensi} for > thinking > of any kind of content, propositional or not. > Even things > like: > > 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. Opining is thinking about something and affirming it, claiming it to be true extramentally. And so on. So we could use {pensi} as a base. Now if we can get rid of the non-proprositional part (or rather treat it as elliptical) we can actually get a fairly tidy bit on mental activity. > Sometimes the NSM prime THINK is used that way, > but > sometimes it is also used for opinions. So > THINK is a blend > of {pensi} and {jinvi}. The more carefully I look at the cases, the more "think about"s turn up. On the other hand, we have explicit comments in various places that (until the controversy came up, at least) the canonical form was "x thinks y about z" and all the "think about"s are to be taken as short for "x thinks something about z" This is not quite {jinvi}, since affirmation is clearly not involved; indeed contrary-to-facts are defined with this device. Of course, I want to say that the "about" part is just subject-raising and logically bad, so eliminable. But I don't expect that to carry any weight in NSM terms (nor Lojban neither). I guess that does amount to a blend of {pensi} and {jinvi}, but it would seem -- as matters now stand -- to have to be expressed with {jinvi} to get the places in (we can {zi'o} out the others I suppose). 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.