From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Apr 27 06:29:48 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 70341 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2006 13:29:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Apr 2006 13:29:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Apr 2006 13:29:46 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FZ6Si-0003Ab-73 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:23:16 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FZ6Ql-00038n-SO; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:21:17 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FZ6QH-00038M-Gm for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:20:45 -0700 Received: from web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.124]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FZ6QF-00038D-HB for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:20:45 -0700 Received: (qmail 98626 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Apr 2006 13:20:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20060427132042.98624.qmail@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.186.84] by web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:20:42 PDT Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:20:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <44501633.1070407@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11347 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: About jboselkei reviews X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=6dFzBboKilYq0Q7g-l2xG1CeiNvFzsXMS822zV44XSkCZ1JBug X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25762 However it came to pass, CLL10.19 (p. 243f) makes it perfectly clear that {ka'e} is now exactly the short version of {kakne}; the {cumki}-related form is not even a possible interpretation. Further, {nu'o} and {pu'i} are only peripherally relevant to "possible" as opposed to "capable." If I was involved in all this -- and I take your word for that -- what ever happened to "is necessary," which I surely would have insisted upon along with "is possible." Since enither of these are in the present system, I take it that this discussion was about something altogether different -- capability, in fact -- and that the discussion of possibility and necessity either never took place (unlikely if I was involved) or was lost in the subsequent development. In any case, the issue is what to do now and hopefully the current revision work will get this all corrected. --- Bob LeChevalier wrote: > John E Clifford wrote: > > While I am not sure I agree with the > arguments in > > toto, I agree with at least a weak form of > the > > conclusion. There is no need for a modal > version > > of {kakne}. > > Ah, but ka'e isn't a modal version of kakne. > At least it wasn't > intended to be. > > The 4 modals of CAhA were things that you and I > came up with together, > as being a way to resolve the potential inanity > of "potential" > predicates. Remembering that in theory an > unmarked bridi could refer to > something that is only potentially true (I > remember examples relating to > ducks being potential swimmers, and paper being > potentially flammable, > in the timeless potential sense, even when the > duck is nowhere near > water and the paper is drenched.) > > With potential a valid form of unmarked bridi, > we needed a way to > explicitly mark bridi as to potentiality and > actuality. You identified > 4 possibilities, to which I mnemomically > assigned ca'a, ka'e, nu'o, and > pu'i. Any resemblance of those modalities to > the bridi from which their > cmavo were mnemonicized is not necessarily > significant. If the > keyphrase "innately capable of" is misleading > people, please remember > that, as with all keyphrase cmavo definitions, > the purpose of that > keyphrase was to have something unique but as > short as possible to be > typed in LogFlash. Just as with the keywords > of the gismu, NONE of the > keyphrases were EVER intended to serve as the > primary definitions of the > words (but then, we also expected that there > would be a dictionary with > proper definitions within a year or so, and > that never happened). They > were, however, baselined along with the cmavo > list, and the lack of a > real dictionary has led people to think of them > as something other than > what they are supposed to be. > > I'm hoping that one eventual outcome of the > byfy work is that the > keyphrases either disappear completely, or that > they are returned to > their intended mnemonic-of-meaning function, > and cease to be definitional. > > > There further should be a modal version of > {cumki}. It would be nice > to convince > > some higher power to shift {ka'e} in that way > > (appearance notwithstanding). > > How would this cumki modal fit into the CAhA > scheme you originally > proposed, or is it really that the keyphrase > for ka'e is poorly chosen > and the pure potential modal should be closer > to cumki in meaning than > to kakne? > > lojbab 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.