From lojban+bncCMGclZyxExCykMvxBBoE_KXc6A@googlegroups.com Fri Jul 29 07:48:32 2011 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QmoMW-00011d-Md; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:48:32 -0700 Received: by qyk31 with SMTP id 31sf3781145qyk.16 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:48:22 -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=cfQQds+tfRgPnj3/MzmHDWMi6YLLlVO0oqJvCSZt9NI=; b=4TZYFQ87X9wgk83j5G/45VKzUQNLrbqG2vwGQTL47HzlJdEkWTBMEwx4R25sWttsNa zJdIsdpuzsC3fTqF9+09ERLQzSGsL7GxD0RP2xIaPIw4auQLN7VB/1bjvxa3D7V1HxYu WXfTCnm7swfNFi3AdJGBUSOa2HYfLNozdiUa4= Received: by 10.229.36.83 with SMTP id s19mr45847qcd.16.1311950898478; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.176.211 with SMTP id bf19ls7167187qab.3.gmail; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.174.13 with SMTP id r13mr1204567qaz.17.1311950897819; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.174.13 with SMTP id r13mr1204565qaz.17.1311950897807; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f45.google.com (mail-vw0-f45.google.com [209.85.212.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gz6si2274325qcb.3.2011.07.29.07.48.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.45; Received: by vws17 with SMTP id 17so3162993vws.4 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:48:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.92.142 with SMTP id cm14mr1363466vdb.397.1311950897464; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.186.231 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:48:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201107191408.50207.phma@phma.optus.nu> <1311780839.58357.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1311870454.18589.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1311886424.23009.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1311949276.34356.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:48:17 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities From: Escape Landsome To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: escaaape@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=escaaape@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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Be careful, we are not speaking of the logical AND, but the fact that an object inherits from two classes at the same time. Even if you are not an << Escape Landsomist philosopher >> or any other type of illogical prig of the sort, I guess you can understand the logical bases of Object-Oriented Programming, and understand that, if I declare something to be both a Tool and a Toy, I have a Toy+Tool. We should imho keep in mind we are talking not about syntax, nor pure logic, but semantics. The "+" notation I abusively use here does not mean logical AND, nor arithmetic sum, it is a kind of abbreviation for "mixing classes together". And, if some thing was regarded by society as both a Tool and a Toy, we would be right to call it both names, and even perhaps both names at the same time. Don't confuse logic with semantics... --- As my point about continua seems not to have been properly understood (perhaps this is to some extent rather misleading)... let me first give you two examples taken from a natlang : 1=C2=B0) =E6=96=B0=E6=88=BF, x=C4=ABn=E2=80=8Bf=C3=A1ng=E2=80=8B, means bot= h "brand new house" AND "bridal chamber". There's no difficulty in finding a continuum in this : a bridal chamber is somewhat "used for the first time", so that there is a vicinity in semantics. Also, keep in mind that continuum just means semantics are not discrete, it does not imply they are connected or simply connected (I assume it is meaningful to use this rather topological language)... 2=C2=B0) =E5=AE=A3=E4=BC=A0=E7=94=BB, xu=C4=81n=E2=80=8Bchu=C3=A1n=E2=80=8B= hu=C3=A0=E2=80=8B, is both "propaganda poster" AND "advertising hoarding". The continuum is quite clear here too, isn't it ? And why should it not be so ? I DON'T MEAN propaganda AND advertising ARE THE SAME THING, but only that you can draw a continuous line from the former to the latter... Of course, you could argue that =E5=AE=A3=E4=BC=A0=E7=94=BB, xu=C4=81n=E2= =80=8Bchu=C3=A1n=E2=80=8Bhu=C3=A0=E2=80=8B, is just "(psychically imperative) (mediatic piece of information)". This way you have collapsed the two extremities of the continuous semantic line into one single semantic point, that renders the idea of the whole line. But this is not always feasible. Even if it were, some information would be lost in the process, because "(psychically imperative) (mediatic piece of information)" could also be some frenetic tune, which it is not. So you should say "(non musical mediatic piece of information)", or rather, perhaps, "(visually iconic piece of information)". But then, that's not all, some information is still lost, and then you should add some more correction, and so on... So that defining =E5=AE=A3=E4=BC=A0=E7=94=BB, xu=C4=81n=E2=80=8Bchu= =C3=A1n=E2=80=8Bhu=C3=A0 as { BOTH "propaganda poster" AND "advertising hoarding" } is much more true, and even more handy. [These remind us of the algebraic process of factoring and expanding a formula... Don't they ?] You should also keep in mind that for "pragmatic reasons" (indeed, "historical reasons"), it is justified the Chinese use the same term to refer to propaganda and advertising... So, the fact that two different notions are mixed up together, that they are INTRICATED, is useful ! is practical ! is beneficial even to a logic-oriented mind ! It is a way of conveying the historical idea that two "historical events", or two "ideological concepts", or two "philosophical notions", or whatever, share a priviledged relationship, and that it is meaningful to tell it. Suppose I am Lao-zi and I have a deep intuition that something like << the Way things are going on >> is AT THE SAME TIME the Rule they obey, and the Means to achieve enlightenment (or the like), then wouldn't it be a good move to term some mixed notion as "the Way" in order to convey this (Way+Rule+Means) meaning ? So, I will term it =E9=81=93, d=C3=A0o=E2=80=8B, (which is also the Directi= on, and many other things, btw). And it would be great ! But, as a lojbanist, what should I do ? Saying some "sum" as (Direction+Way+Rule+Order+Means) ? Or saying some new word, a neologism just created on-the-spot ? Both solutions seems to me unsatisfactory. The "sum" solution is not that good, for one never knows the precise import of a philosophical notion : it extends much more than its first definition (for instance, in Spinoza's "ETHICS", "infinitely many" is first given some precise definition, but then, long after, it is used in a slightly different acception, AND THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO BE DONE)... Either the creator of the notion lists all of the semantic import of the new term, but thus "kills" its generative creativity by giving it an excessively-precise determination... or the creator just points at SOME of the semantic import, but then, the choice is somewhat *arbitrary*. Creating a neologism is the other solution, but does not seem a too good solution too, because the relationship between the shape of the word and its meaning is somewhat lost, --- at least to some extent. --- So, I don't know what to do... Assuming there is some X which is (Question+Questioning+Quest), how should a lojbanist term it ? --=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.