From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCllMHxBBoEmZT1nA@googlegroups.com Wed Jul 27 10:26:16 2011 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm7rz-0004Nj-Ov; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:26:16 -0700 Received: by yxj20 with SMTP id 20sf2102502yxj.16 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:26:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:message-id:date:from:subject:to:mime-version :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=D3DrkLVPfei/1Wm2XrIl8uWm/dIdGGEPqJrLwnJEAmA=; b=hvs2nc+1nDfvNuCCTay1TJ8xEh+/NogzYGsVzVRwHUSXeEeltml+vDWLeHLPGx0NLA cB56RI76mJVta7X7IoDuGxJuZIbGbfxBqgr+WVaoU86ITE0d0wMpLtk4aM3zGzbqJY8C gzEMsvuHDFuN91oLAamObrHRv8nUrQcSi18bA= Received: by 10.150.206.13 with SMTP id d13mr16688ybg.31.1311787557419; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:25:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.151.7 with SMTP id d7ls1718475ano.3.gmail; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.154.2 with SMTP id g2mr38755yhk.44.1311787556188; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.154.2 with SMTP id g2mr38754yhk.44.1311787556176; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm14-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm14-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.236.16]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id w5si36556ybw.0.2011.07.27.10.25.55; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.16 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.16; Received: from [66.94.237.199] by nm14.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Jul 2011 17:25:55 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.119] by tm10.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Jul 2011 17:25:55 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1024.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Jul 2011 17:25:55 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 746273.38985.bm@omp1024.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 62056 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Jul 2011 17:25:55 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 9o4QqKsVM1lAAC23QK_fOMjNFoxiCuxqcMipkV0vMBsb4Hz z1vCXbyhq6TyPz4Gj41qG_XmnYSei18oyKOauRRSQXztQDYNMa72aAwyUmFb OaMaGWCeul1_oiv5u_ajvHUHBDNzjhm60Mb6b70MgxHH7vxc_XVBoezun2bA _bC9dQiFnfEFl0PE_XTYOjLtSk3an4bL7MAJMS6fdIMfA5mLaTve42JdIsJ9 hu6iMK4HpdoCFcIKHUK.Xvl1T4vxRtfQiY7m7E6W.jhu9pCjwY.6Tclu_2ZN gwKvfpSDohAwNmSRd8i5cCcwDmXk_hFdxh2.stcPTfl_cfjdfHBUsyHwFZGw zcDrZjN93xLjRPFSCW_P7Fn23g4Dw_5POuzDSyVLzqD3xN3edEy.Wb9OwT0E HJtMYcNqSVP0Mcw-- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:25:54 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.310352 Message-ID: <1311787554.60786.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:25:54 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Syntax and Speech Ax (was xu dai) 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 66.94.236.16 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: 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 ----- Original Message ---- < To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, July 27, 2011 8:09:50 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai On 16 July 2011 17:40, John E Clifford wrote: > To be sure, I can infer that you have a suggestion from the fact that you= =20 >actually propose one, but proposing it isn't saying that you have one, whi= ch is=20 >what 'mi stidi ... ' does. I see your point. But an e'u-suggestion can state exactly what the speaker's suggestion is. It's syntactically indicated. If "e'u" comes at the beginningn of a sentence, the whole sentence represents that which I feel "I suggest" about, i.e. the content of what I intend to be a suggestion. I use a certain syntactical scope marked by "e'u" to put my suggestion in; how is that different from telling what my suggestion is by putting it in a NU clause on a certain sumti place of "stidi"?>> How is a groan different from saying "I have a pain? OK, not quite the sam= e,=20 but in the same general realm. We don't say (even with 'dai') that 'do sti= di=20 ,,, ' makes a suggestion; it reports one. Why should 'mi stidi' be differe= nt=20 (aside from being somewhat odd, pragmatically -- unless it has hidden tens= e=20 potential, like "I would have suggested, say)? We are back to the underlyi= ng=20 (and more than occasionally ignored) principle, that all communicatively=20 relevant information in a sentence is on its face, not buried away in=20 (potentially) misleading alternate expressions. 'mi stidi' looks like a re= port,=20 so had better be a report, just 'e'u' had better be a suggestion. Part of = the=20 reason for this rule is just the fact that English violates the Hell out it= :=20 making suggestions, for example, in the form of questions or judgements or= =20 reports or commands and Lord knows what else. Importing this practice into= =20 Lojban violates the spirit (and, indeed, in some significant places, the le= tter)=20 of what Lojban is about. <<> 'mi stidi lo nu do klama' and 'e'u do klama' are not equally Informativ= e=20 speech acts, since 'e'u' makes the following sentence not informative but a= =20 suggestion, a Directive speech act. > [...] > And, of course, it is usually OK to infer from you stating 'mi stidi ...'= that=20 >you are actually making that suggestion, though 'mi stidi ...' doesn't act= ually=20 >do that. > Among the many things that hold for 'mi stidi...' is that it is true or f= alse,=20 >neither of which applies to 'e'u ...' though they may have many other prop= erties=20 > > >in common -- mostly those related to the feasibility of the suggestion. I don't think "e'u" or any UI1 should mark a pre-defined speech act type for the given sentence. Whether the sentence is informative / suggestive / etc. largely depends on pragmatics, contexts: >> Yes for English, as a matter of fact; no for Lojban as a matter of design. << A: lo vu gerku cu nitcu lo nu mi gy kurji (The dog there needs to be looked after by me.) B: .e'u do tu klama (Why don't you go there?)>> Your translation uses one of the alternatives of English (a different direc= tive=20 use -- these types tend to interchange in English, cf. the question request= ). =20 There is, in fact, no simple English form for suggestions, so we are forced= =20 into, these alternatives. The same is not the case for Lojban. << A: do noi bebna cu nitcu lo nu mi do kurji (You imbecile need to be looked after by me.) B: .e'u do klama lo malraistu (How about you go to hell?) Is the second "e'u" making a suggestion or informing the listener of the fact that the speaker hates to be looked after?>> Well, a careful listener might infer from the fact that B said this that he= did=20 not want to be taken care of (or, at least, not by A). But the sentence do= es=20 not report this, any more than 'e'u ...' reports that I think that ,,, wou= ld be=20 a good idea to put into practice. Though one might infer that from the fac= t=20 that I make the suggestion (and I might equally think it a lousy idea but b= e a=20 kiss-ass). =20 <<"True or false" holds for "mi stidi ...", yes, and that's the same for "e'u ..."; the UI doesn't guarantee that the speaker is actually making that suggestion. << This is obscure. If you mean that a sentence beginning with 'e'u' is tr= ue or=20 false, then no, it is not. If you mean that a person can dissemble with=20 suggestions, then, of course he can (as with any other sentence type). The= =20 dissembling involves inferences on the part of the hearers, it is not conta= ined=20 directly in the words uttered by the speaker. The inferences assume the sp= eaker=20 is following the societal conventions, but he is not. =20 << I agree with: > But, just as one can misinform using an Informative speech act, one can= =20 >simulate a feeling one does not have in an Expressive speech act. > The syntactical legitimacy of the form does not rely on its accuracy. I also agree with: > The function of Expressive speech acts is to express feeling and the like= . > [...] > Expressive is always the expression of the speaker's feeling>> Oopsy. I should have said "always presents as an expression..." <> Nicely put. It would probably be about as informative, but the way the=20 information was garnered would be different. In one case, the authorities w= ould=20 assume that there protesters are not lying and so take them at their word. = In=20 the other case, the authorities would infer that there was opposition to th= eir=20 plan and that people felt strongly about it (strongly enough to protest, no= t an=20 insignificant fact). <> It may not be argued for (official) Lojban. To be sure, again, the governm= ent=20 can infer from the fact that there is vocal opposition to the plan that som= e=20 people want them not to carry it through, and, depending on how significant= =20 popular opinion is, this might lead them to recognize a suggestion (or even= =20 something stronger) not to carry through. But that was never said, in eith= er=20 shout. These inferences are not haphazard, but are built into the conventi= ons. This pertains to your and xorxes' later comments: On 16 July 2011 23:49, John E. Clifford wrote: > And one part of all that is to keep one grammatical distinction overt (or= at=20 >least clearly marked). > Now it would be a possible one -- but one inviting slippage, I think, to = allow=20 >that for certain predicate in certain contexts, when unmarked, to indicate= a=20 >different speech act from the usual one (informative). > We do it all the time in English, of course, and it creates countless pro= blems=20 >for logical analysis. > Better to stick to the simple rule, hard though it seems to be for people= to=20 >grasp or follow (why pursue a language which is supposed to change the way= you=20 >think and then change it back so that it works like one you already have?) 2011/7/17 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > But why should language be limited to serious purposes? It needs to cover= the=20 >whole gamut of purposes. For me, 'the simple rule' would be to have "e'u" & "stidi" or "au" & "djica" etc. being different by default only in their syntax and not additionally in their speech act types unless explicitly marked as some. Now, if 1) Expressive is always the expression of the speaker's feeling, BUT 2) koha can simulate with an attitudinal a feeling koha does not have, what's the point of defining attitudinals as Expressive-only? Indeed, if we did that, (1) and (2) would wind up being contradictory. Both you and I agree on (1) and (2); and what appears to be the sole arrangement for (1) and (2) to not be contradictory, is to not pre-define and limit all attitidinals to be of a particular speech act type.>> See the "oopsy" above. Expressive presents as an expression of a feeling t= he=20 speaker is actually having, just as a declarative sentence presents as repo= rting=20 a fact the speaker knows (etc., depending on source information and the lik= e). =20 > I find the notion that asking a question is Expressive a little hard to= =20 follow: > what is it expressing? > Surely not curiosity on the part of the speaker -- or even interest; ther= e are=20 >far too many bureaucrats asking too many questions just to fill out a form= for=20 >that to be plausible. *Asking* a question is not only Directive, is my opinion. It can be as Expressive as Directive. It can convey as distinct an attitude to express something as an action to direct the audience to engage in something. If an utterance is Directive, should it be always non-Expressive by category? Can you direct somebody to do something without expressing your inner state of demanding that it be done? As I said, the act of questioning is the expression of the speaker's mental posture toward a propositional construct. The "what is it" attitude. And by "a mental posture" or "an attitude" I don't mean a state limited to a biological body. Any lingo-logical performer including computers in a non-closed system can theoretically have the "what is it" attitude toward a linguistic object. And when that attitude is expressed either internally or externally, a question is realized.>> I have no idea what an "inner state of demanding that it be done" is and ha= ve=20 never experienced it (as such, at least). The same goes for most of the ot= her=20 states you postulate. I have mentally formulated questions, I have wondere= d=20 about propositions, I have desired certain things to happen and even that= =20 certain people make them happen and so on. Some of these have eventuated i= n=20 actual spoken/written questions, others not, and similarly for deisres and= =20 directives. And I have asked questions without that inner state, and simil= arly=20 given directions without any interest in whether they are carried out or no= t. =20 The two seem totally separate for me -- as a matter of logic. That there m= ay be=20 psychological connections I don't deny as that is what underlies many of th= e=20 inferences involved. Someone asks me how to get to Marthasville. I give t= hem=20 directions, a recipe (a directive use of language, for the most part, if yo= u=20 leave out the side comments) for getting there. I don't care whether they= =20 follow these directions or not, or whether they get to Marthasville at all.= At=20 the most, I might be concerned about whether my directions were correct (i.= e,=20 would, if followed, lead one to Marthasville) <> Well, asking a question is a speech act, as is expressing an emotion. The= =20 question is a linguistic object capable of being uttered -- and is uttered = in=20 the course of asking it. What exactly an emotion is, is a bit harder, but = it=20 seems to an internal mental state or activity of some sort, which may be=20 revealed in any number of ways, including direct expression as well as repo= rts=20 and various fidgets (depending on the emotion involved). I'm not clear whe= re=20 this is supposed to fit into whatever is going on here. << The questions function is to summon up an answer (period). > Aiming to elicit an answer hardly seems in line with feeling pain or plea= sure=20 >or other central UI concepts (though perhaps related to some of the=20 >function-changing UI, which are also not Expressive, by and large). Do we ask a (real) question for the sake always of only summoning up an answer, or sometimes of also expressing our answer-seeking attitude? Would the question "xu do mi prami" be a failed utterance if I couldn't get an answer? Or would it be a successful one regardless of the response or the lack thereof, for the very fact that I would have successfully expressed what it is that I question? Like "e'u" and "aunai", I think the function or the speech act type of "xu" in its actual uses is dynamically variable, however static its syntax may be.>> Again, I can imagine English examples of what I think you mean, but they do= n't=20 translate in Lojban as questions. 'xu do mi prami' wants an answer (probab= ly=20 too needily) so that not getting an overt answer provides much the same=20 information as a negative answer would -- but not by answering. So, if, as= on=20 your theory, there was a need that this question expressed, then presumably= that=20 need was met. But that hardly means the question was expressing that need,= =20 though it was a handy tool for getting it filled (even if negatively). Not= ice=20 that, as far as the need goes, 'mi prami do' , say in the right tone of voi= ce=20 and the right circumstances, would do as well. <<"Aiming to elicit an answer" seems to have a sense of ".au" or ".uanai". I compare: ma klama zo'e .uanai klama do xu klama do .uanai klama These are analogous if not entirely identical. The main difference is that "ma" and "xu" explicitly expect of the audience to return a syntactically corresponding solution, which "uanai" doesn't. "xu" is used in aiming to elicit an answer, yes; used by what? The utterer. The same origin as of "uanai". Whenever "xu" is used, an aspect of the utterer is indicated, in addition to the fact that an answer is expected to be presented. I consider that Expressive, in addition to Directive.>> Sorry, I don't even see the analogy. One asks who is coming -- thus assumi= ng=20 someone is, the second expresses surprise that anyone is coming (thus assum= ing a=20 prior belief that no one was). Similarly the second set: the first asks whe= ther=20 you are coming (presupposing no definite knowledge one way or the other) th= e=20 second expresses surprise that you come (presupposing knowing that you are= =20 come). They seem totally unrelated. <<> But 'dai' allows that I may feel something akin to what someone else fe= els=20 when=20 > >presented with the other person's expressions of their feeling. > Of course, I may also feel something quite different (maybe at the same t= ime):=20 >hatred, jealousy, sympathy and so on. Would you say the following parenthetical remarks make sense? xu broda to mi teryrei lo jei broda toi xu dai broda to mi sruma lo du'u na'e mi teryrei lo jei broda toi I think they do. If I'm asked what the meaning of "xu dai" might be, I could say "mi sruma lo du'u na'e mi teryrei lo jei ...".>> Let's see 'broda' here stands for a sentence and the parenthetical remarks = are=20 meant to explain what is going on in the sentence with the added marker. S= o the=20 first one makes sense, except that it is not clear that I am asking for the= the=20 truth value, rather than for 'go'i' or 'na go'i'. For the second, I don't = see=20 why you are assuming anything about yourself and I don't know what the pola= r=20 opposite of asking about a truth value is (telling about the false-value of= ?),=20 so it doesn't obviously fit. But, in any case, the parentheticals are at b= est=20 descriptions of what is going on, not equivalents of the original sentences= =20 (which are questions, after all, not reports). --=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.