From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDxwbHmBBoEj7VaSw@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 30 11:16:35 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PCFye-0003hB-Hd; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:16:34 -0700 Received: by ywj3 with SMTP id 3sf790983ywj.16 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:16:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:message-id:x-ymail-osg:received :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=A056k1oU6ZBJ399gW6lNEacN0u1cLwKHojuLZCxGvUk=; b=qDskV8nMqlY5zeErY+RBufNNjddp0Q6ze2IFw7DCsKcyHHPP2JfowNVnVpBeAovsSb IxmZ7dI9rW753Vh9sYCQE6XIbp8TiCSWX6T8nnzdyDtVbzl/pwyvoS8Q5c32FIhlGQx0 MCRVb1CZ9RhxiVtcI7qRmWr7VlYFBBIKfiFzI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references :date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YUC5S/aZycHJUGsfDQt9FKSriP4AV8R+JCcTM+V7OaAeUjbCFP6dxFqQuww8fQhxFM 36WdeeyLuF6ODKxrcGSCk2H7tWKVuJY8lJ7Z1VUsKtHilcnJaopqPstfrDlcQYN5+6KE f2vChp+gqSu2aPD76yn63FJw77TOmKp3D1xOA= Received: by 10.150.248.4 with SMTP id v4mr2041527ybh.82.1288462577463; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:16:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.1.11 with SMTP id 11ls2327864yba.0.p; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.146.3 with SMTP id y3mr6093375ybn.8.1288462576836; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.146.3 with SMTP id y3mr6093373ybn.8.1288462576792; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.121]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id g34si1332271ybc.3.2010.10.30.11.16.15; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.121 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.121; Received: (qmail 21553 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Oct 2010 18:16:15 -0000 Message-ID: <241285.20069.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: jU8jIXYVM1m3hxagLhYG23q0SBMXL322kc.76I6jaVLlsrB .DI8ZXNq6TSGLKT3OC_IMAcl48lOu95s2mDSZ.beVJGKdqbfsv9fnOnlAAcw hoKpPchnvdVgF0rIyktTSE5tZPGwa44FYXziV9dbhR1FftG6FXQMhaT2_3sD MOTJ2XBVpN7SNg4nt4p7OitQgGao9YkaxWkaWBDpnjab6loU5xb45NQCsRW. DQNeqE7IBay2u0ZqE_HS9urAJqbGuOLl4BlX4ALSjdfkDcjMnrTq5D0KqFcZ OYyPERtz8RkA5dWjLBiW71hH2CQhF.m87vFOMAfuiLJVyCPyKG3aE098QwgG 18A6hfrKlx3GqyeyrMCAYN5kPOAFfneNfMr.6kogJLxBl.A-- Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:16:15 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.284920 References: <20101027160630.GD43996@alice.local> <2b585d63-1def-4797-8c75-453e66cac098@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <201010280843.15900.jezuch@interia.pl> <2327e11e-c10a-42d4-9e8f-bc3841fd75d9@j33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <20101028171348.GB45294@alice.local> <73ebebef-27b3-4093-8a32-1a66115a02c0@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <46808.14053.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:16:15 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: mi kakne lo bajra To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.121 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 11:55:24 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: mi kakne lo bajra On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > Raising is always a risky business, because it appears to involve moving = items > from a subordinate, temporary universes of discourse into the main one. So it does, but there's nothing special about raising in that. There are plenty of other ways of doing it that don't involve raising. For example: la djan cu jinvi lo du'u zasti kei lo cevni "John thinks about gods that (they) exist." By saying that, we have introduced gods into the universe of discourse through raising. But if we say instead: la djan cu jinvi lo du'u lo cevni cu zasti .i la djan cu so'e roi tavla mi lo cevni "John thinks gods exist. John often talks to me about gods." No raising there, but we have also introduced gods into the universe of discourse. Introducing things into the universe of discourse is something we all do all the time, whenever we speak. It's part and parcel of what speaking is all about. I agree that we introduce things into the universe of discourse, but not th= at we=20 do it casually, in wishes or quotations, or the like. Such a remark may be= the=20 occasion for such a change, but not the change in and of itself. To change = the=20 main universe of discourse requires the collaboration of the interlocutors,= =20 which must be consciously and overtly given. Exactly what constitutes that= =20 shift is problematic, which is another reason why raising is risky. For=20 example, your second example, second sentence -- which does involve raising= --=20 probably does bring them into the discussion. But it is still open to the = other=20 conversant to say "But there are no gods, so we should lock him away." > If I > say "I want for me to ride a unicorn", say, I am not at all put off by th= e > objection "There are no unicorns" because the unicorn I want is buried in= a=20 >pair > of worlds which pertain to two different counterfactual conditonals and s= o=20 have > nothing to the universe of present discourse. If I say, on the other han= d > (assuming English is something like a logical language :)), Being a logical language has nothing to do with it. You're talking about ontology, not about logic. "There are no unicorns, so you can't want one" is an ontological objection, not a logical one. And a silly one at that, from someone who thinks that it is only possible to talk about things that exist in the real/material world. Note that i did not say what you find an objection. I said that it was ris= ky to=20 move something from a subordinate universe to the main one. The reason why= it=20 is risky is that it invalidates what appear to be normally valid arguments:= a=20 matter of logic. > "I want a unicorn > for me to ride", I seem to be saying that there are unicorns (in the pres= ent > domain) and I want one of them to ride. The claim that there aren't any i= s=20 then > false, even though the interlocutor has believed it true and has not agre= ed to > an expansion, as required by the rules of conversation. "Sorry, there aren't any here", or "there aren't any in this world" or "sorry, but unicorns don't exist" is a perfectly legitimate and true answer. "Universe of discourse" is not the same as "the material universe in which we exist". Again, I carefully didn't say any of that, unless you mean by "here" or "in= this=20 world" the universe of discourse, in which case, I do mean that and these= =20 constitute a rejection of the raised form (if true). =20 > Indeed, his remark > might well be a reminder that the universe of the dialog does not encompa= ss > unicorns (whatever may happen in wish-worlds and the like). The universe which the dialogue is about encompasses them as soon as they are mentioned. That of course does not mean that the universe in which the dialogue takes place suddenly encompasses unicorns. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. You can't create things into existence just by talking about them. But "the universe of the dialogue" is ambiguous, you know it, and yet you relish bringing it up every time. Why? The point is simply that merely saying some words not only does not bring t= hings=20 into existence (which I never claimed it did) but also does not bring them = into=20 the domain from which the referents of terms in the conversation are drawn.= If=20 I want a unicorn, that does not mean that there has to be a unicorn in the= =20 domain of referents in my conversation. In fact, it means that, whatever= =20 referent there may be for the term is buried away in several stages of worl= d=20 shifting (moving to new domains of reference) which do not -- unless the=20 conversation turns that way -- have to affect the domain of the conversatio= n at=20 all (by the way, for me, the expression "universe of discourse" is not=20 ambiguous). And, even if it does, the new expanded domain need not contain = any=20 of the items that were in the domain in which the wished unicorn resided. > Further, the new > form implies that there is a unicorn I want to ride and that, even in the > expanded domain, is false, since no one unicorn is singled out by my desi= re,=20 >but > rather any one will do. I will not get drawn into that one this time. Too, bad. It's probably the weak point in the standard case. But, of cour= se,=20 it is true under the standard rules. > There are other problems, about the laws of identity > and the like that this move can give rise to. So, as a general rule, don= 't > raise unless you are sure the referent of what you raise is already set u= p to=20 >be > talked about. In other words, "don't ever speak"? Or just "don't ever speak in Lojban"? How do you set up something to be talked about other than by mentioning it? Well, you can mention it directly (though that is, admittedly, hard to do f= or=20 things not in the basic domain) or you can otherwise indicate where you wan= t the=20 discussion to go. Not every place in every relation raises problems, but a= =20 fairly large -- and diverse -- set do and need (especially in a logical=20 language) to be treated carefully. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20 lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at=20 http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. =20 --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.