From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRC88b3mBBoEHdFeHQ@googlegroups.com Mon Nov 01 19:34:52 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PD6i1-0001FY-70; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:34:52 -0700 Received: by ywj3 with SMTP id 3sf4541684ywj.16 for ; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:34:43 -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: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=kvyWYwV3frVk1zLAmvHc7arubwDomNtxbZapiSkQ8E8=; b=njQeJ4Yvpf+FcO0sNMGCoAZDxORMqp5mJhf5/he4KKVuC3OY8ZAl9hUKLIeBnjwT8k ngGhnfj7ms48nfyYgRwA3BYQoiZswcXct898pjTN6MxJlcuXJUf0KzSg8XgHvfuP0kUO DceyydiQgorx3FeuP8bAOOb6jE6ozbknSfdeU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:x-ymail-osg: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=ATd7YOxM6T6vtXNeTZQKhxOpejzw0eFevFLHx/emAVL1t0mhoh45OY84QcFof0Drkk AxUNRfmhCKwArvR8Jgo4ZdINeBHuTRoEHlAu63qVyEweEUKMpdqrHWyuNRoMTDgvjnWr r7KddfZQBTbKU7NJgj33+NevKiLSyQ5e4tlyY= Received: by 10.151.62.39 with SMTP id p39mr2404313ybk.49.1288665276650; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:34:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.151.85.5 with SMTP id n5ls3651195ybl.2.p; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.79.2 with SMTP id g2mr7508544ybl.56.1288665275962; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.79.2 with SMTP id g2mr7508543ybl.56.1288665275917; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.120]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id l66si2429279yhd.4.2010.11.01.19.34.34; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.120 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.120; Received: (qmail 13610 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Nov 2010 02:34:34 -0000 Message-ID: <407677.11990.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: QnXqpSgVM1mJybx5pb.pjDpDmWr3z8cwXbNzLZtAxHNfI6Y VkFxeyXx1DnKiYnANidxJkNpjnGUJ2oyUKaSAyAOalyByJA.Ygdk9Q8pxENH v8jC_OjY.Mqff4QqkTIdMXx.2uPiSYVuqfN69ekXbj7RrMwxJa5GEGphiGL9 TaH_5Mj2imtatCjAJdgH75g1HVr4uhqh01LRZl.sB48.Z8Yhc.4.AulEKGNs iW2hI8O2ODnW3HfWHKMCcSanc7gO8.42yo3ZF.JC_cTBkQZ1oP8BhAdXrI8v c8sBF3wQyVsBu3gx537o- Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:34:34 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.284920 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:34:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "John E. Clifford" Subject: [lojban] A summary on 'djica' etc. 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 68.142.199.120 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 1. There are no grammatical restrictions on what kind of term can occur in = an argument place in Lojban. Some may seem more natural in some places, so= me may seem idiotic in some places, but all are grammatically allowed. The= natural and idiotic features of some kinds of terms in some places is larg= ely a semantic matter: some predicates just seem to beg for solid objects i= n various places, other seem to only be comfortable with propositions, say.= The source of the naturalness or not may be found by examining the inner = logic (the ultimate semantic deconstruction) of the predicates and terms, a= lthough this is often hard to do in final details. and in the process we ma= y discover a way that terms not initially thought to go in a slot might non= etheless go there and an explanation of why they make sense there. 2, There is in Lojban, as in many languages, a grammatical process called = raising, by which a term in a subordinate position is brought into a higher= clause. It may come to replace that subordinate clause or to fill another= position in superordinate clause. This is a sort of reverse of the proces= s of eliding information that is repeated, when it is "obvious". So, in "I'= m thinking of buying a car" we don't mention that it is me buying the car; = that's obvious. But similarly, I might report those same thought as "I am = thinking about a car", raising "a car" from the clause "that I buy a car" (= in there at some level) to replace it. "I said "He's an asaph" about Tom (= not Peter as someone just claimed), raising the identification "'he' =3D To= m" to the surface from the quote and the pragmatics of the situation. =20 This process can always be carried out, grammatically (well, I suppose eac= h language has some limitations), but logically it is a risky business, par= ticularly when the clause from which it is raised is a world creating one. = A world creating clause is one that invokes an alternate story to the one = in which the main line develops. Typical examples are modal claims (what i= s possible or probable), contrary-to-fact conditionals and other subjunctiv= e clauses, and remote tenses, especially the future. The problem is, that = in these alternate stories, there may be different things and even familiar= things may behave differently, so in moving a term out of a world where it= has a certain referent into the current world, it may lose its referent (o= r introduce a new thing, its referent, into the current world) and thus tur= n a true statement into a false one -- always a no-no in Logic. Not really incidentally, the reverse move, of putting reference from the ma= in story into the alternate world is usually not problematic, since -- exce= pt in extreme cases -- most of the of the main story carries over into subj= unctive and possible and even future worlds. 3. At the core of the logic of predicates of desire is a description of ho= w that desire is to be satisfied. This tends to be put in terms of a felt= lack or gap (whether is is phenomenologically justified talk or not I don'= t know, do we introspect a feeling of a gap?) and what would fill it. That = is we have a counterfactual, or, rather, a pair of them: "If such and such = would happen then this gap would be filled" and "If this gap were filled, t= hen such and such would have happened". These two define a desire (want, n= eed, wish,...) for such and such, clearly an event of some kind. So, the n= atural term after "I want" is an event-description of some sort. =20 4. But such event descriptions often feature a non-event term as the focus= of the desired event and, indeed, the event desired may be very indistinct= compared to the clarity of the focal object.=20 So, it seems inevitable that that object term be raised to the position of = the object of desire: I want to eat an apple > I want an apple to eat > I = want an apple. =20 5. But now the problems with raising arise: 'an apple' which had its refer= ent in two alternate worlds, now appears to have it in this one. And it ma= y not. We need a particular apple which is the one I desire. Clearly, any= apple will do for the first part of the definition, If I eat it (say), the= n my gap is filled. But not the second part, since, in those remote storie= s, there is no guarantee that my gap was filled by this particular apple --= indeed that this apple is even in that remote story. So, we have gone fro= m the true claim that I want to eat an apple, to the false one, strictly sp= eaking, that I want some particular apple. Of course, this problem does no= t arise in English, which has the occasional virtue of being sloppy: we say= "Oh, you know he still means that he wants to eat an apple." But Lojban d= oes not have that virtue -- or at least is not supposed to. If I say 'mi d= jica lo plise', I can't claim that I really said 'mi djica lo nu citka lo plise'. =20 Of course, this problem does not arise if you pick your apple before hand, = as it were, in this story before going to the alternates. So, 'mi djica le= plise' is not a problem, since that is a raising from 'mi djica lo nu citk= a le plise' which carries its referent back to the alternate worlds and is = the same in both of them (the referent of 'lo plise' need not be, which mak= es the raising doubly suspect in this case), 6. So, to keep the logical part of the logical language going, so that gram= matical transformations do not involve invalid arguments (moving from true = to false), don't do raisings out of alternate stories. To meet the urge to= say, a la English, "I want an apple", leave at least the vestiges of the = event description (in these case; perhaps other things in other cases) in p= lace. Or pick your desideratum beforehand; 'mi djica ta' is not going to g= iver you problems. =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.