From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCI9LXmBBoEPzCfBg@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 31 07:15:54 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PCYhG-0004rG-M7; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:15:54 -0700 Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20sf7964085gwj.16 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:15:40 -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=SjAD/hnRCnSTaZYXO5cdwsQrIbONRvfjxM/krPlskcI=; b=aRJagcq7OM2CBkNScz1bI8IVVTJvQtJDJlbP5SE29AsFpCjpr+L06pojOXuxcOZvcc eH0EM/srjCsP252Vndydg6M2bBRo1UuxKBKpK+5T5aWbap21N5ctO2kvHvIEvBbVcxkH /F6aE65wffDPeBWOQr4n/k0qjYYqcEfYTnoJ8= 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=sXoqUgMy5qaAaraQhlctFtyU/r6Dp+Y4U0Wd2UgfGl2cOclE92b6+JYmZiCwhFZFo3 6mDDXGD2DUXCjIfUi6WkZb6QnMYDlvebmRoHOIQWooQY/9/gJ4287vx6EhRzWaoS5ZsL CnUGxHtlTq80wbRKPnf3g4YFU4o0lzZhLCVp8= Received: by 10.90.61.23 with SMTP id j23mr516505aga.59.1288534536411; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:15:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.151.24.19 with SMTP id b19ls1618001ybj.1.p; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.8.16 with SMTP id l16mr6284202ybi.16.1288534535839; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.8.16 with SMTP id l16mr6284201ybi.16.1288534535806; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:15:35 -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 q8si1832973ybk.8.2010.10.31.07.15.34; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:15:34 -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 70951 invoked by uid 60001); 31 Oct 2010 14:15:33 -0000 Message-ID: <761203.1069.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 1ptT5HgVM1l95QdDfCZiK4nupnlvVKNmRldWf.WY05318Dw e.DaagBUWE4.EH5igRmVhR2J8iJHfbe0HYFlWlGDoyP.Z1SxGcAJfmJ1MJoG xD3i1lAe1.cy0bHP6zKHKCPC32hN.i1ZYq_gnN0S8DnaOP174zArfLq_npRq MQCPIMTx.6poplaXFX23_YGRq4EU87ZWLREweGrey1SEydWnSKkhkUHSG0Ml Hs6nBY0JOBT2T6ROsz2vWL5X9geui1PJ0j_9mKgQcu2bsMV_fZsNFD7lv69_ 1HLGoRbWTWUKEPtb9sgE4qXFm9iRf4jD4tBLTaO35z9uRIKa1j6yYNGL2Z9b oe41s1JnYun34wR1JMbgc_dzDrhx4EPFIuBb7oz4- Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:15:33 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.284920 References: <995110.82874.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:15:33 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] 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 68.142.199.123 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 ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, October 31, 2010 7:17:05 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:56 AM, John E. Clifford w= rote: > > But the event of wearing a hat is abstract in Lojban terminology I know, that's why I say Lojban terminology is so haywired sometimes. **I don't see the problem here; "abstract term" means one whose selbri (God= I=20 hate Lb terminology) is constructed using cmavo of a certain kind (or array= of=20 kinds). > (and semantics, since it is a type or some such notion) So when I say: mi viska lo nu do dasni lo mapku is there some problem? Is that a different sense of "viska" from: mi viska lo mapku **No, but it is looking at a different object, in this case allowing for=20 delusions or or other sorts of misseeings. If you're sure your perception = there=20 is veridical (love slipping that word in from time to time) then go ahead a= nd=20 raise. You still may be wrong, of course, but that was always a risk. 'nu'= is=20 probably not the best choice for an abstractor here. > I don't get your point: how do you make use of the possession of an obj= ect=20 >(unless this is a very misleading way of saying you make use of the object= ). It's just as misleading/non-misleading as specifying that you want to possess it, or that you need to possess it, instead of just saying that you want it or need it. It is for the most part unnecessarily overprecise. **These are not misleading, they are just different (like the 'viska' case= =20 above). In the case of 'pilno', which is about as close to a zero probabil= ity=20 of problems of this sort as you can get, it is hard to figure out what the= =20 sentence with an event term as object might mean (without a lot of context:= "He=20 used his having a hammer as an excuse for going back to the workroom", say)= .=20 With 'djica' or 'netci' it is easier to see the point. > The problem, to come back to it is, is whether the referent of a term is= in=20 >the domain of discourse or not, In a lot of cases involving terms that=20 >construct out of human intentions and emotions and cognitions, the answer = is=20 >that typically the term we put in that place is not, in fact referring to= =20 >something in the domain of discourse, and should be marked accordingly. So you claim, but it doesn't sound right to me. It seems to me that saying something about something is enough to put it in the domain of discourse. **And so it is, which is why we carefully don't say anything about stuff th= at is=20 not there to be talked about, but rather bury them away in other worlds=20 altogether. Abstractors and (real) modals (including tenses) have the effe= ct of=20 removing reference from the present domain to another (or, as Frege insiste= d, of=20 moving from present reference to present sense, which ultimately comes to t= he=20 same thing). =20 > To distinguish it from the occasional cases where it does so refer, if fo= r=20 >nothing else. Lojban decided a long time ago to deal with this problem no= t by=20 >marking certain places as being peculiar with respect to some rules but by= using=20 >certain term types that disallowed raising. We have fairly frequently fai= led to=20 >follow those plans > with various weird results, but the plan is still a good one. The plan was never a coherent one, and the implementation was a total disaster, since many people are now convinced that "mi djica ta" for "I want that" is incorrect Lojban. **Well, it is true that the need to be careful in these places has been=20 overstressed, with the results you report, that doesn't mean the plan was a= bad=20 one nor incoherent. It may be that the choice of abstractors to use was wr= ong=20 (I personally think it all comes down to propositions, since I am reasonabl= y=20 sure they exist and am much less sure about any of the others). Of course,= 'mi=20 djica ta' and even 'mi djjica lo mapku' are perfectly fine Lojban, but they= have=20 consequences, one of which is the need to be able at least in principle to = point=20 out the object intended. Clearly there is no problem with pointing out ta;= you=20 just did. lo mapku may be somewhat harder but also may be possible (althou= gh a=20 purist might insist that you use 'le' in that case). > People who say 'mi djicu lo plise' should be prepared to answer, "Which = one?"=20 >and, if they cannot in principle even do that, then their claim is false. If I tell you I want an apple, I have to tell you which apple or else my claim is false, but if I tell you I want the having of apples, I don't need to tell you which having of apples and my claim is still true? That's not coherent. **Well, yes. Because having an apple is a type not a token (well, it is a = token=20 of having, but that is another story). Grammatically simple expressions ar= e=20 often logically (semantically) complex. So "I want an apple" comes out as= =20 something like "I have a felt lack such that both if I were to have (or wha= tever=20 predicate you want here) an apple, that lack would be filled and if that la= ck=20 were to be filled, I would have an apple" Now, if I know that there is an = apple=20 in this world that does for both these buried quantifiers, I can pop back. = If=20 not, the quantifiers stay buried under at least two world shifts. =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.