From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDnxrPmBBoEFLyvhA@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 30 20:33:10 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PCOfK-0005Vq-NF; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:33:10 -0700 Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28sf7221351gxk.16 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:33:00 -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:received:x-mailer:date :from:subject: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=2S2bsxaPdG7I0xk7r0vBwNt+0fSIFtxXx0HoV9Qd3hA=; b=5+C+B1hPl5E08guzl8c2IkBplIeoDOoySaa0Yd6RgPNvQSJq3DCzPg6LYQMjwEfSji WMySjQpg9XPH56eY2+LFI8kpEl0ttqKeDXfa62csUe/VchFUOU2CDLuk4eAPae2+BooD p/81QLc0Q+tSCF6TpDEGs3aogA/7UgtSWqHpI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:x-mailer:date:from:subject: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=3D+Xn+jpn6SIIx1RT7vavj1sGS7nA7bWNUPsUIjE5N7ZwwIUWXq3s0OVvZ/wTQgzmL 3mMoqsf1APwfgtoHspkDZcvJqApd3XKOQPKVfnIPQ5wbWlRkfJTtitPBpwM3I5KgO3Zn +kXN1HN8nvfV+mGuvPBD1pcicdWGcqZPvJgZc= Received: by 10.151.62.31 with SMTP id p31mr2071838ybk.20.1288495975750; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:32:55 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.138.19 with SMTP id l19ls2066656ybd.5.p; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.114.1 with SMTP id r1mr2014300ybm.49.1288495974982; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.114.1 with SMTP id r1mr2014299ybm.49.1288495974952; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.123]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id u22si1574878yba.7.2010.10.30.20.32.53; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.123 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.123; Received: (qmail 11917 invoked by uid 60001); 31 Oct 2010 03:32:53 -0000 Message-ID: <451990.11913.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:32:53 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.284920 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:32:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "John E. Clifford" Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" 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 68.142.199.123 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 Sent from my iPad On Oct 30, 2010, at 17:48, Lindar wrote: Other examples of potentially raising selbri are djuno, cilre, facki, jimpe, and all the others with a place structure involving "fact x2 about x3". The argument x3 can be raised from the subordinate clause in x2. This rarely happens however, because the raised argument is inconveniently located. That's not what I'm talking about. That's a feature of the language. When x1 of a subordinate clause is elided, it's assumed to be the x1 of the main bridi. That's not what we're discussing, so forgive me if I've applied the wrong terminology. The case cited is not a case where x1 in the subordinate is elided because = it is the same as the x1 in the main clause, but rather of some term in the= subordinate clause being moved from the subordinate clause to another plac= e in the main clause. As noted, this is rarely done when the subordinate = clause comes before the place where the raising would place the term (altho= ugh shifting that place is not that uncommon). Nobody really says: mi facki lo du'u sralo kei ko'a "I found out being Australian about her." "I found out about her being Australian." We really should, though. >_> Why? it's awkward and it can lead to problems. Instead of: mi facki lo du'u ko'a sralo "I found out that she is Australian." Raising is just not convenient in Lojban for these propositional attitude selbri. (Also, it is not clear why some of them have a raising place and others, like for example "birti", don't. Either all should have it or none, but Lojban place structures are so full of exceptions. But that's just an aside.) I think that's an error. I've already semi-addressed it to the BPFK. Which? Some having and some not having raising places (we can actually prov= ide those places -- grammatically -- for any word; they just don't make any= sense in many cases) or that there are general exceptions in Lojban place = structure? The latter is simply an observable fact, the former is more eas= y to dispute (one may argue that there are significant differences behind t= he different place structures -- and that there are not). And has been. Wanting an apple for the purpose of eating it is still sumti raising, because it's adding an implied concept of - having-. That's what sumti raising is. =3D/ It is, in a sense, sumti raising, but not for the reason you give. Consider these: mi pilno lo mapku lo nu dasni mi nitcu lo mapku lo nu dasni mi djica lo mapku lo nu dasni Two of these are wrong. =3D\ Careful! In the rush to avoid one (or two) sort of error, you do not want = to create a new sort of error. There are surely occasions when I want or m= aybe even need a particular hat (in this case) and then these three sentenc= es present no problems, even if they do involve raising (which it is not pe= rfectly clear they do -- as opposed to elision of repeated information). T= he problem comes when there is not such a particular hat and we do raise it= out of the event description anyhow. There is no way to tell in Lojban wh= ich of these histories the given sentence comes from (notice this is a prob= lem even for 'pilno' if we pull the term across tense or modality borders)= . So, we can find out what hat he uses by looking and what hat he neds or = wants by asking or some such thing. But when we can't do that, even in pri= nciple, the raising ought to be illegitimate (and marked somehow to prevent= it -- putting it into some abstraction phrase: nu, ka, and the like will work). =20 "pilno", "nitcu" and "djica" all have basically the same place structure. (There may be others like them, for example "sazri.) Now, we could say that in those three examples, there is a double sumti raising, since the x1 of dasni is raised to the x1 of the main clause, and the x2 of dasni is raised to the x2 of the main clause. But there is nothing wrong with any of them! sumti raising is a normal part of the Lojban grammar. Some selbri just happen to have argument places for raised arguments. So what? Why this witch-hunt about the x2 of djica? Why doesn't anyone ever worry about the tens or maybe hundreds of other sumti raising places that the gismu list provides? Because these are grammatical changes which do not correspond to valid argu= ment, contra "the Logical Language" (one version, anyhow), It does seem th= at the racial matter is cases where human intentions are involved and only = for these is there a problem. And, with varying likelihoods: "I gave an ap= ple" has almost zero chance of being a problem (or of being a raising, for = that matter), "That is a picture of a horse" has a significant but not majo= r chance of being an improper raising, "I need a hammer" is virtually cert= ain to be improper. {nitcu} and {djica} both have (or should have) an abstracted second place. Here again, you have overshot the mark. These predicates don't *require* a= bstract second arguments, but they usually need them to be true, But not a= lways (see above). What about the apple do you want/need?You've expressed reason and the target, but not what to do with it. -THAT- is my problem here. {pilno} is a bad example, because there's nothing else implied. {nitcu} ... do you need possession? Do you need to throw it? The'''' problem is that the definition does not include -having-. So do we assume when it's an object it's having, and something else in all other cases? That's not what Lojban is about. That's just plain bad practice. I see your general point and it is somewhat right: we need to insulate the = term here from the domain of discourse and putting it in an event descripti= on, say, does that very nicely (though that gets ignored as well). But it = is the insulation, not the additional information about why one wants or ne= eds an object, what one is going to do with it, and so on, that is required= . And you didn't say what you think about "dunda lo plise". Do you object to that too, or do you wisely ignore the gismu list comment in that case? {dunda} implies no transfer of ownership. It's a simple physical transfer of an object from one person to another. It's like borrowing a pen. It -could- mean a transfer of ownership, but no such sense is implied by the word in of itself. xorxes' point (though not how we would put it) is that, if it does involve = a change of ownership, then it is likely that any raising involved (I forge= t what the structure of dunda' is, so I am not clear where the raising com= e in), it may be illegitimate (in the semantic/logical sense -- it is alway= s grammatically allowed). =20 There are other ways around this problem, notably taking 'lo broda' to refe= r not to brodas directly but to brodaness or broda-type, but that creates p= roblems in the ordinary, otherwise nonproblematic uses of the term, which = seems a net loss. (What is the type of three girls walking down the street = and how is involved in causing a car wreck?). =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.