From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCHlYzxBBoEJz3hqw@googlegroups.com Sun Jul 17 09:15:18 2011 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QiTzu-0007Bu-RI; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:15:18 -0700 Received: by qyk31 with SMTP id 31sf2889992qyk.16 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:15:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qg1+bNP+BaeejshaS6OpLspExG76VHsN8pCY9OJcF1c=; b=Ve3gBRVtBaJZSM5FIwr+9oDTJuF6SA8xHQGe1I7tKdc8gWqSrD+Q1tklOFhTz+ZWww Oru/slwpiHNQNNDwRDNOCoFMvS+PfcXdSLp8xNJDO07Gc0t5y11OFFO9DO0KNdiNF7Wv VTcypYV+NuNZBeKjmmycvtui4fDt04rAJiDVU= Received: by 10.229.113.40 with SMTP id y40mr622256qcp.40.1310919303808; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:15:03 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.181.73 with SMTP id bx9ls437479qab.6.gmail; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.194.65 with SMTP id dx1mr5701924qab.13.1310919303291; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.194.65 with SMTP id dx1mr5701923qab.13.1310919303282; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f51.google.com (mail-vw0-f51.google.com [209.85.212.51]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ge31si2787059qcb.2.2011.07.17.09.15.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.51; Received: by mail-vw0-f51.google.com with SMTP id 20so2330237vws.24 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:15:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.24.47 with SMTP id r15mr5367480vdf.110.1310919303158; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.111.198 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:15:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <380A4C35-EF1C-4F52-ADBF-324B57D9DDEF@yahoo.com> References: <1310834449.33385.YahooMailRC@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <380A4C35-EF1C-4F52-ADBF-324B57D9DDEF@yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:15:03 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.51 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 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 On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:49 PM, John E. Clifford wr= ote: > We comeback to the question of Lojban being a logical language and what t= hat means. =A0While I think we have wandered unconsciously pretty far from = the original meaning, I don't see any reason to deliberately and consciousl= y do so. =A0And one part of all that is to keep one grammatical distinction= overt (or at least clearly marked). =A0Now it would be a possible one -- b= ut one uniting slippage, I think, to allow that for certain predicate in ce= rtain contexts, when unmarked, to indicate a different speech act from the = usual one (informative). It is always possible to mark the it clearly when needed. I don't think having forced implicit defaults is a good idea. > Did I really describe a generalization for 'dai'? Not a complete genaralization, but what it would mean for "xu dai" and for "ko dai". >=A0Other than to point out how ridiculous it was for any serious purpose (= I have a logician's contempt for rhetoric)? But why should language be limited to serious purposes? It needs to cover the whole gamut of purposes. >=A0'e'u dai do klama' is a suggestion, if at all, that I am making (no one= else has said it) and trying to pass the blame to someone else is mere chi= canery. "Trying to pass the blame"? "Chicanery"? What happened to your contempt for rhetoric? > =A0In particular, your suggesting that you come seems inherently a vapid = speech act, unless you sense an objection to it. =A0So, my making the sugge= stion that you come but projecting it on you is either to state those objec= tions or to rebut them. =A0But, as with the question case, it is ultimately= my speech act, not yours (not even one you intended, if the question cases= are anything to go by). Of course, a speech act is always an act performed by the speaker, that's the definition of speech act, isn't it? An act that someone performs by means of speech. That some speech acts may be performed by the speaker putting themselves in the shoes of someone else does not make it any less their act. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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.