From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCZurfmBBoE6qaXaA@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 31 14:18:40 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PCfIJ-0002sh-MQ; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:18:39 -0700 Received: by ywj3 with SMTP id 3sf2487329ywj.16 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:18:21 -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=yHm2iV+eW+lLcEok6P/bdOPE1mEPNetz0d+Fu6Nn47o=; b=MFEhINfsehTkSl4CIWj/e1CdKg4o3W8585q2MQwI1n776VCha+EEf+slcXiF9FLm1/ Kh2xjobN12NSuREz8g5hk5JR6NJcmnBH4nc/e5BsUDH2GjVFFWQJChDT/QLf26NJxkk/ W0Hgx9CcX5qgNw9I7CO5TaxQOuS9uT4/rTH0I= 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=1QxP3RMpbvF1p+3d5S+eYSi4cZ5j/8z5ZMUqdH5XO6JPTLRi11tXyCfv+M76xaKzCx rj+vY4D1MRf/iWFrgwBJ7SGt0IGj3BZom2QYeXRpXIls+LgfrNuFY2eER9lS5WhOlYfK Orbbln2rqBelKXB59GRal1b7iYuEtsHsSqRdc= Received: by 10.150.69.3 with SMTP id r3mr2166157yba.38.1288559897816; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:18:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.249.20 with SMTP id w20ls2887231ybh.6.p; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.146.3 with SMTP id y3mr6665849ybn.8.1288559897274; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.146.3 with SMTP id y3mr6665848ybn.8.1288559897241; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:18:17 -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 p9si1998449ybk.12.2010.10.31.14.18.16; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:18:16 -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 22109 invoked by uid 60001); 31 Oct 2010 21:18:15 -0000 Message-ID: <562845.3281.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: EBMvS2oVM1lv1JU5mFa36sLnT8KmBStwx7FGg12mVcZ7XYQ BWNUS9VxgwKMKE8ZVhGO6x7tR24qqNgbOzqNmhUszMJ0tQs5QHKG2Mewx3dK EQZHsuZI9dYIC9makyY_kTEclhST3CF0zaKaskcfq8tk_7GzX3SL2CS1uCSV AeUN43EXV3mwlM8qkVuJJOFekOUtRTMjANxtVRpCyTHcVwkDQKP9ICfs5sYI 3XR6UqosLsMEKrJaFM3DCJMNeclVV7V3LATblH1IZ_6hn_bcch2m1cisOq5q 6.xs7.qk74_0h4KFoi1yGPuSqB9XkVsPTy6XCDQlWTsGFvXS5W6Jmp6kgRFL UIjgpF1TZ1LumckUcvyMvKQH6XolzocEmCYGB2sNcvc8pzw-- Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:18:15 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 14:18:15 -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 3:34:00 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:15 AM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > 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). Are "lo fasnu", "lo se ckaji", "lo se djuno", "lo se viska" abstract, by that definition? Their selbri are not constructed using cmavo of the kind you have in mind. **Nice point. I suppose they are (I'm not sure about 'viska') or, better, = as=20 you say, the use of abstraction is not very useful. >> (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. So "abstractions" can be visible. What would be the best choice of "abstractor" here, if not "nu"? **I don't remember, something about the sense data I received and what they= =20 would correlate with normally. Not that you can't observe an event (token)= , of=20 course. But Lojban has not been kind to token-type distinctions=20 > 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. I still don't see how it is coherent to require hats to always be tokens, but allowing hat-wearings to be sometimes types and sometimes tokens. There is nothing in the semantics of hats and hat-wearings to warrant the distinction, nor in the syntax of "lo mapku" and "lo mapnundasni". **Well, good. I don't like token type talk as much as you do, and "abstrac= tion"=20 is misleading. So the hat or the hat-wearing you see is individual and=20 concrete. So, too, is the apple or the eating of an apple or the having of = one=20 that you desire. The difference is that that concrete individual is not of= this=20 world (or, at least, is not claimed to be usually). Now, we have chosen to= mark=20 this by bringing in events and properties and various other things to make = the=20 case. That choice made sense at the time and we now may be stuck with it, = but=20 there may well be more transparent ways of doing what is needed here. By t= he=20 way, the problem is not in the semantics of 'lo mapku' or 'lo maonundasni' = but=20 in that of 'viska' and 'djica' and the like. > 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). Would you have propositions be visible, or just desirable? If just desirable, would they be desirable in the same way that objects can be desirable? **I don't think that propositions are visible and only rarely are they=20 desirable, but what I meant was that we could use 'ka' as a universal mark = for=20 the sorts of things that turn up in these messy cases. That is, that what = I am=20 experiencing bears a certain relation -- different for different predicates= , but=20 all embedded in counterfactuals -- to a proposition. Somewhere in that=20 counterfactual clause (or plural) there is a 'lo broda'. When the referent= of=20 that is in this world and can function there as in the other, then we can r= aise=20 that expression to the place occupied (at some level of the grammar) by=20 reference to the proposition. And no mayhem results. There are probably se= veral=20 levels of caveats and quibbles disregarded here, but that is the gist.=20 =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.