From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Jan 05 11:23:55 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 78465 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2007 19:19:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33) by m38.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2007 19:19:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.5) by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2007 19:19:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 26856 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2007 19:18:50 -0000 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 5 Jan 2007 19:18:48 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2uZM-0003NT-4W for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:17:37 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2uYy-0003Ky-CV; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:17:19 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:15:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2uXS-0003KM-GK for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:15:39 -0800 Received: from web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.117]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2uXL-0003K0-01 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:15:38 -0800 Received: (qmail 79891 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Jan 2007 19:15:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20070105191524.79889.qmail@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: MXhDITEVM1maaKVzHQy8KCe8IhZCmsFQPp4VabE5yH3f3TKWJd6cqDm4Crg_5gHTT3a52u8C2jXerFjc2Puaqjxlo3nh1kkuij.EzRPZpgepu9agbQdfXVYR7jXactFPL1ayr5YR5tByuVBNbw7eVf1w7AXadv.qQDyQT9jv48ZJVtHRHGtVB5bYzqBa Received: from [70.237.196.59] by web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:15:24 PST Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:15:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <925d17560701050934yc0c5158w7d06fb2f916dc9a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Score-Int: -6 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 13500 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: -0.7 X-Spam-Score-Int: -6 X-Spam-Bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Good Austinian that I am (when convenient), the most important example is the phrase "make a promise". While this can be taken as some sort of figure of speech, it can usefully be taken literally, for, in the act of promising, one creates (ex nihilo) a network of obligations which are collectively what it means to have promised. Promises also (in my idiolect anyhow) can expire and be fulfilled (which would not normally apply to what is promised: when I give the promised bike, my giving a bike is not fulfilled. it merely occurs). Also, promises can be conditional even when what is promised is absolute (though this can usually be worked either way). But back to the original, breaking a promise is not breaking, in any apparent sense, the thing promised, only the network of obligations. Notice also "Some promises are hard to keep" where the thing promised is not something to be kept (promises are always propositional/events -- so simple nouns have to be taken as elliptical for propositions or events in which the referent of the noun plays a prominent -- and predictable -- part; that's why there is {tu'a} after all). For some othese ("breaking a promise" especially, since it was what was asked about) we can do without this notion of promises, as noted: "He didn't do what he promised to" and the same probably applies on the positive side. The case of making a promise can also, of course, be reduced simply to promising. But the question was aboutr English example, not how to treat them in Lojban. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.2 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE RBL: Envelope sender in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org 1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST RBL: Envelope sender in postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org -0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.5 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: Duty, promice etc... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=aI6Cp61Rx7mYeF-LvCIfZRwl6OTtP52wtEuRJG0-wuN2bi8t3w X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 27939 Good Austinian that I am (when convenient), the most important example is the phrase "make a promise". While this can be taken as some sort of figure of speech, it can usefully be taken literally, for, in the act of promising, one creates (ex nihilo) a network of obligations which are collectively what it means to have promised. Promises also (in my idiolect anyhow) can expire and be fulfilled (which would not normally apply to what is promised: when I give the promised bike, my giving a bike is not fulfilled. it merely occurs). Also, promises can be conditional even when what is promised is absolute (though this can usually be worked either way). But back to the original, breaking a promise is not breaking, in any apparent sense, the thing promised, only the network of obligations. Notice also "Some promises are hard to keep" where the thing promised is not something to be kept (promises are always propositional/events -- so simple nouns have to be taken as elliptical for propositions or events in which the referent of the noun plays a prominent -- and predictable -- part; that's why there is {tu'a} after all). For some othese ("breaking a promise" especially, since it was what was asked about) we can do without this notion of promises, as noted: "He didn't do what he promised to" and the same probably applies on the positive side. The case of making a promise can also, of course, be reduced simply to promising. But the question was aboutr English example, not how to treat them in Lojban. --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 1/5/07, John E Clifford wrote: > > As for the English, the words "promise" and "duty" are polysemous, > > covering the making of the promise, what is promised and some > > abstraction (don't we have a generic abstraction operator? Yes, {su'u}) > > which combines what is promised with the whole network of conditions > > which making a promise calls into being. This last is probably best > > summed up in "the sate of being obligated to do whatever by virtue of a > > promise". > > Could you give examples where the English "promise" means anything > other than what is promised, {lo se nupre}? Can it really be used for the > act of making a promise or for the state one is in after making a promise? > Could you say: "He was chewing gum during his promise" or "I can't do > that because I'm in a promise"? > > Same for "duty". Except for it meaning "tax", when does it mean anything > other than {lo se bilga}? > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > 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. > > 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.