From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCmh7fmBBoEF5m5cg@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 31 12:30:01 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PCdbF-00015M-0F; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:30:00 -0700 Received: by yxe42 with SMTP id 42sf8269038yxe.16 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:29:47 -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=Rtfk3Q9I3b0FyUl0SWgaw7DXhVj6Fj56rV447Mg4hu0=; b=YNyArugu0c8JnIYfpKR0oKKKdLEP40zZzTBxG8ArKqHzydAKiCM363gHjsANtzsplT 1f37s9c/a5TwXFmm7F2eN9MuIzBzSK8wXcXdYb/CrX1t1eW6jggqqNy/mzoVo32CivQ0 fTuHxD8Wde2nUiAkyYmQRKnRVnj2UC/EcP1Fw= 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=hihkYeRCrTkKzi/6N6ERhU3BAUGNTXKYvGzbnH6TaGhRIk4CtvZmjRCKRPlNLqhXJl 8p+pAuUeOsQ5Q+YnBbkNPZNsUoBV4zBNe1uhamawHrG6OTrZV/+jbbRZlSUWEeT3SzV3 u8rZplxujE8y1OGIRfiW3w5Y44WhXeIpo+1KA= Received: by 10.90.6.23 with SMTP id 23mr553752agf.19.1288553382077; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:29:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.91.149.14 with SMTP id b14ls923821ago.6.p; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.50.24 with SMTP id c24mr3785559agk.1.1288553381481; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.50.24 with SMTP id c24mr3785558agk.1.1288553381462; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:29:41 -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 z43si1799437yhc.9.2010.10.31.12.29.40; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:29:40 -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 13172 invoked by uid 60001); 31 Oct 2010 19:29:39 -0000 Message-ID: <823481.12380.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 7HS1vmAVM1lB4OTH7aVKS4.O7TOJwTLMktc6Kx0D_GtftpJ SAY8Z6cwsbzlECWGy5dLZrCzUBYl1qWrUlkF0VYlhEVyCGIiJ8zCU1TdDR2O 4Ks3VQWfeVwa6jyzbmdBi.3MO55yNGAoLXKyCJQCPd0fw5oVbuAwiiCoIr25 ee3ZXOinReL6n.8zEgOz4Zee1rfKdZ4di6B6RnlzoRhVcRLX0ycG89kuKkQB QOovzPVNqgMrkiTDACHrsosp0diBp4M9x4KNph37wEr6Kdg.QiijuOV2rYVn a92PenfjoB_n_jeJ_MzleHKua71YVX5njSF6BihGj04jG2cM1r83LDMdfyDK bMKJQHoScN.ZLUFvdicaMXt1y.HGpn1Ec97NpjUB4VJwr7w-- Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:29:39 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.284920 References: <995110.82874.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <761203.1069.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:29:39 -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 68.142.199.121 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 Well, I agree that there isn't much difference between 'nitci' and 'djica',= =20 except that 'nitci' requires a purpose and 'djica' does not, though it may = have=20 one. And, of course, you can say 'mi djica lo pliise' but be prepared to answer = the=20 legitimate question, "Which one?" Being a logical language has its costs a= s=20 well as its benefits. ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, October 31, 2010 9:32:29 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra My head hurts. Doesn't all this discussion belong on jboske, or something? In any case, Lindar, when you say "then what does {djica lo nu bajra} mean? "Want to have a running."?" I answer unequivocally "Yes, that's PRECISELY what it means. I want to have a running (with presumably me in the x1 place)". As far as Xorxes' contention "because the gi'uste also says that "mi dunda lo plise" is wrong, and I don't suppose you agree with that." No, that's precisely wrong, what it says is: "x2 may be a specific object, a commodity (mass), an event, or a property; pedantically, for objects/commodities, this is sumti-raising from ownership of the object/commodity " What that says is precisely that "mi dunda lo plise" is completely 100% RIGHT ("it may be an object or commodity"), but what that actually _implies_ from a lofty, ivory tower linguistic POV that theoreticians who don't use language to communicate, but simple to make niggling points that make ordinary people's heads hurt (see above), and prevents languages from ever being spoken, so that it's a good thing the cavemen didn't have these linguistic academicians, or we'd still be grunting around the fire, (I'm sorry. Where was I?) is a transfer of the ownership property. That's what "pedantically" means. "Pendantically" means "ordinary people can ignore this fine distinction, because if you don't you'll never get any plise". (But of course, I've always 100% agreed with xorxes on the point that there is absolutely no reason why the x2 of djica can't be an object, just like the x2 of nitcu, and that the distinction between THOSE words are arbitrary.) --gejyspa On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:15 AM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > > > > > ----- 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 = =20 >wrote: >> >> 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 (G= od I > hate Lb terminology) is constructed using cmavo of a certain kind (or arr= ay of > 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 > delusions or or other sorts of misseeings. If you're sure your perceptio= n=20 >there > is veridical (love slipping that word in from time to time) then go ahead= and > raise. You still may be wrong, of course, but that was always a risk. 'n= u' is > 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 ob= ject >>(unless this is a very misleading way of saying you make use of the objec= t). > > 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' cas= e > above). In the case of 'pilno', which is about as close to a zero probab= ility > of problems of this sort as you can get, it is hard to figure out what th= e > sentence with an event term as object might mean (without a lot of contex= t:=20 "He > used his having a hammer as an excuse for going back to the workroom", sa= y). > 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 i= s in >>the domain of discourse or not, In a lot of cases involving terms that >>construct out of human intentions and emotions and cognitions, the answer= is >>that typically the term we put in that place is not, in fact referring to >>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 = that=20 >is > not there to be talked about, but rather bury them away in other worlds > altogether. Abstractors and (real) modals (including tenses) have the ef= fect=20 >of > removing reference from the present domain to another (or, as Frege insis= ted,=20 >of > moving from present reference to present sense, which ultimately comes to= the > same thing). > >> To distinguish it from the occasional cases where it does so refer, if f= or >>nothing else. Lojban decided a long time ago to deal with this problem n= ot by >>marking certain places as being peculiar with respect to some rules but b= y=20 >using >>certain term types that disallowed raising. We have fairly frequently fa= iled=20 >to >>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 > overstressed, with the results you report, that doesn't mean the plan was= a=20 bad > one nor incoherent. It may be that the choice of abstractors to use was = wrong > (I personally think it all comes down to propositions, since I am reasona= bly > sure they exist and am much less sure about any of the others). Of cours= e,=20 'mi > djica ta' and even 'mi djjica lo mapku' are perfectly fine Lojban, but th= ey=20 >have > consequences, one of which is the need to be able at least in principle t= o=20 >point > out the object intended. Clearly there is no problem with pointing out t= a;=20 you > just did. lo mapku may be somewhat harder but also may be possible (alth= ough=20 a > purist might insist that you use 'le' in that case). > >> People who say 'mi djicu lo plise' should be prepared to answer, "Which= =20 one?" >>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=20 >token > of having, but that is another story). Grammatically simple expressions = are > often logically (semantically) complex. So "I want an apple" comes out a= s > something like "I have a felt lack such that both if I were to have (or= =20 >whatever > predicate you want here) an apple, that lack would be filled and if that = lack > were to be filled, I would have an apple" Now, if I know that there is a= n=20 >apple > in this world that does for both these buried quantifiers, I can pop back= . If > not, the quantifiers stay buried under at least two world shifts. > > > > > -- > 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 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.