From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDU0bPmBBoEoOA7VA@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 30 20:56:18 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PCP1i-0006Af-PH; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:56:18 -0700 Received: by ywj3 with SMTP id 3sf1320066ywj.16 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:56:08 -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=vPr/a5FsqMIZXlk6/eT50IERmlBRvuY81mdltZtwNfA=; b=XsuR+sUGEZV1p5MgntPP1DeT/CgBOT9+rlOLbo/dQm7/LEz2QxAHEz8vR8nw7ioRr+ wENgPDE/2333t7s2YqLamRlmupQA3YCqnCC7kp6qu1vpjKlp6Pi1JVb6Sbl3Mc3i6zze ROnyKmmdyal3+mkNStu2U7usHwC0/PLeUhujs= 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=yM2Aj9R3vY4Vxq7nuAF36i4isKVauJupMj09eUBPOU1OI0KTarkvUN2UjO5u/311qV bZ9mMRxUEwdfoAICD63oS3DWCQvs/ErE3REN0v3tff2U98Gmnt8opA7esJ8YiQZIJvHu DX+7LK7XXy4ZDGbyx/9Ve9Oe7a9BUXfU6+fmk= Received: by 10.151.68.12 with SMTP id v12mr2079118ybk.6.1288497364472; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:56:04 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.151.24.19 with SMTP id b19ls1415834ybj.1.p; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.225.7 with SMTP id x7mr416304ybg.5.1288497363703; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.225.7 with SMTP id x7mr416303ybg.5.1288497363676; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.119]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id p9si1583249ybk.12.2010.10.30.20.56.02; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.119 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.119; Received: (qmail 83015 invoked by uid 60001); 31 Oct 2010 03:56:02 -0000 Message-ID: <995110.82874.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:56:01 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.284920 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:56:01 -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 68.142.199.119 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 19:07, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Lindar wrote: 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\ And how about: mi pilno lo nu mi tolcau lo mapku kei lo nu mi dasni lo mapku mi pilno lo nu mi tolcau lo mapku kei lo nu mi dasni lo mapku mi pilno lo nu mi tolcau lo mapku kei lo nu mi dasni lo mapku Is the first one wrong? {nitcu} and {djica} both have (or should have) an abstracted second place. "abstracted" is another one of those abuses of terminology. There is nothing abstract about wearing a hat. A number is abstract, a property is abstract, a set is abstract, wearing a hat is not abstract. But I understand what you mean, you say that you can only need or want events, not objects. But then how come you can make use of objects? Isn't it the possession of those objects that you make use of? But the event of wearing a hat is abstract in Lojban terminology (and seman= tics, since it is a type or some such notion) and I suppose that this is wh= at he means. He is wrong, of course in insisting that these relations requ= ire such terms in their second place. I don't get your point: how do you m= ake use of the possession of an object (unless this is a very misleading wa= y of saying you make use of the object). =20 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. I did express what to do with the hat I want: wear it. I can do the same for the apple: mi djica lo plise lo nu renro fi lo stedu be do mi nitcu lo plise lo nu renro fi lo stedu be do mi pilno lo plise lo nu renro fi lo stedu be do {pilno} is a bad example, because there's nothing else implied. How come? Don't you need to have something before you can use it? How could you make use of it if you don't have it? mi djica lo nu tolcau lo plise kei lo nu renro py lo stedu be do mi nitcu lo nu tolcau lo plise kei lo nu renro py lo stedu be do mi pilno lo nu tolcau lo plise kei lo nu renro py lo stedu be do {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. You don't have to assume anything. Of course if what you are going to do with it is throw it, you will need to have it, but first you will need for it to exist, and before that you will need for the tree to grow, and before that you will need the Earth to exist so that the tree can grow there, and before that you will also need the Sun to exist, and we can go on. So yes, needing something probably means that you need it to exist and that you need to have it. So what? You still need it. 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. I'm not talking about ownership. I'm talking about having it. Do you say: mi dunda lo nu tolcau lo plise kei do or do you say: mi dunda lo plise do Do I just transfer the apple to you, or do I transfer the having of the apple to you? If what you want is the having of the apple, should I just transfer the apple, or should I transfer the having of the apple? The gi'uste says that "mi dunda lo plise do" is wrong or ambiguous. Do you agree. This last part seem pretty pointless to me, since it is off on something th= at is not the problem, about whether we have given a purpose for giving som= ething or whether we have given possession along with -- or instead of (pos= sible?) -- the apple and so on. The problem, to come back to it is, is wh= ether the referent of a term is in the domain of discourse or not, In a lo= t of cases involving terms that construct out of human intentions and emoti= ons and cognitions, the answer is that typically the term we put in that pl= ace is not, in fact referring to something in the domain of discourse, and = should be marked accordingly. To distinguish it from the occasional cases = where it does so refer, if for nothing else. Lojban decided a long time ag= o to deal with this problem not by marking certain places as being peculiar= with respect to some rules but by using certain term types that disallowed= raising. We have fairly frequently failed to follow those plans with various weird results, but the plan is still a good one. People who = say 'mi djicu lo plise' should be prepared to answer, "Which one?" and, if = they cannot in principle even do that, then their claim is false. =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.