From jjllambias@gmail.com Fri Dec 04 18:29:17 2009 Received: from mail-yx0-f202.google.com ([209.85.210.202]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NGkOX-0001NL-Ht for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:29:17 -0800 Received: by yxe40 with SMTP id 40so2809921yxe.28 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:29:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=gYXRG+OtrjRtFZByPTsm0uWkrrmGTT6VPG2GVOJoBtM=; b=p9yDik3cdPzZi8UIrsCnyWumO/2/x6DoiXXjb10JSLv6dADBTCCg9x8Tra1nvTWWEu uf9mb6fcE/QpJsj3m27hhB7QSqFfO2YH0pZRCBFGv4vbHk0+3y76efAkW6FBJxalcCRJ 0kJeqrIeIQgvptrtVYMUf0HbmpHW93YSZWZeQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=MQ6V0phAz0EzCre71fORqwg8NY6Z2+NSB9R12pxNsUZpOl6ryStNDHHJHNkLGCsspE Ep4vJa5GJCkvdZ84EHJ2Z5fdASL1vH3KxSE3EZoboXNSxqV1AwHlbMXXKlLDGwaP8IxB X05DtQ++/SwfgrdcD4+5anNmGUUvYtpaNwoIk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.62.4 with SMTP id k4mr6145512aga.56.1259980145878; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:29:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <925d17560912030728s34f5a4f7he1ecb295fb7bfacf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 23:29:05 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17560912041829j368963b5y431b13ea2c29aff7@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: what's a du'u? From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Thomas Jack wrote: > My real concern is about {du'u}, though. As I understand it, it's a > predication (where the arguments are things referred to), so that {lo > du'u la .tom. du la .tom. cu du lo du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.} is > true given that all the names refer to the same person. I don't think it's true in general. It's true only if the sumti "la tom" and "la tomas" have been assigned the same value outside of the du'u context. > Maybe a {du'u} somehow wraps up not only the things referred to, but > the way in which they are referred to? Yes, that's a good way of saying it. Referent assignments made inside a du'u stay within that context. A different case would be something like this: la tom goi ko'a cu du la tomas goi ko'e .i se ni'i bo lo du'u ko'a du ko'e cu du lo du'u ko'a du ko'a > I wonder to what extent Lojban settles this question for itself rather > than (like English) leaving it open for theorists to come up with all > kinds of different theories about reference, propositions, etc. Not to any great extent. That would mean there had to be some great theorist when Lojban was designed that already had all the answers, but that was not the case. > I also wonder whether there is evidence to be found in the logs about > whether people typically would assent to {lo du'u la .tom. du la .tom. > cu du lo du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.} Someone might be willing to assent to that, but if you ask them whether they really think knowing one amounts to the same thing as knowing the other they would hopefully soon realize that that can't be the case, so there has to be some problem with a theory that prredicts that. mu'o mi'e xorxes