From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBDMycvxBBoErsnjmw@googlegroups.com Fri Jul 29 09:50:36 2011 Received: from mail-ew0-f61.google.com ([209.85.215.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QmqGd-00058G-FX; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:50:35 -0700 Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5sf487734ewy.16 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:50:24 -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:from :date:message-id:subject: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; bh=+5SMQJYg647YH9US3S5V96l+/ewRc5MBT0m+edonnxY=; b=X7YLXqjZqxytoz1jnTuQJ1+hWFiGE0A/TzZVOpjCjDtkWp8Pgofox7z9SMEZI0xINh t35xQVamDnLWAgARHCuyLxxq0e+MahO07eqWuhkIfXjJRWLvrxMA4XzkozzSTIMR/aui zlUCUJqINYusxWtW6CO2pIUxVzs1NOoZuVOoo= Received: by 10.223.1.74 with SMTP id 10mr1153311fae.39.1311958220300; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:50:20 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.149.75 with SMTP id s11ls5030421wbv.2.gmail; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.29.144 with SMTP id q16mr166767wbc.13.1311958219378; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.29.144 with SMTP id q16mr166766wbc.13.1311958219337; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f47.google.com (mail-ww0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c25si4072643wbp.1.2011.07.29.09.50.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.47; Received: by mail-ww0-f47.google.com with SMTP id 27so3959867wwf.4 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.182.74 with SMTP id cb10mr2160173wbb.48.1311958219118; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:50:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.47.135 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:49:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1311956271.5493.YahooMailRC@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 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> <1311956271.5493.YahooMailRC@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: Luke Bergen Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:49:58 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3001b85d9c591e04a93813ca --20cf3001b85d9c591e04a93813ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 oh I see what you're saying. If you're trying to say "X and Y and Z (which are all the same thing)" then you end up with (as an example) "my shirt AND the shirt that I am wearing AND the shirt that I have on (all of which are the same thing)" where clearly any one of these expressions refers to the same thing such that I might just as well have said "my shirt". I guess the idea is to say that A, B, and C are all conventionally thought of as being different things but I (the author) declare that they are the same thing. But then at that point you make pointless the idea of this concept being A + B + C because they're all the same. So esk, have you considered the paradoxical nature of claiming that X is A + B + C (implying that A,B and C are distinct things such that it is useful to declare X as being an amalgamation of all three) and then with the same expression also say that A, B and C are in fact the same things as one another? Or is my understanding of what you're trying to express off? On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:17 PM, John E Clifford wrote: > Still, if they are the same, the result is either one of them.. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Luke Bergen > *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Fri, July 29, 2011 9:28:16 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities > > I meant A together with B not the logical AND. > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:21 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > >> I do hope that what you are describing is not quite the point. A AND B >> (in just about any sense of AND) is just A if A and B are the same. and, if >> that is X, then X is A, too. So, assuming we have a word for A (B would do >> just as well) we have a word for X. I assume something more is meant, but >> I cannot elicit a coherent description of what that is. I am inclined to >> doubt that what is wanted is a concept no one ever dreamed of before, but it >> is not likely to be in the current Lojban vocabulary -- L doesn't do a lot >> of philosophy and what it does tends to be analytic, not >> phenomenological/existentialist. The problem with finding a new word for it >> -- if we insist on an analytic construction -- is the nebulousness of the >> notion, which seems to defy analysis (skipping over understanding). If it >> should ever become (relatively) clear, a proper analytic construction would >> be easy. In the meantime, just about anything that is in proper form and >> not already used will do fine (with the book you mentioned attached, of >> course). Humpty-dumptyism has it uses. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Luke Bergen >> *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com >> *Sent:* Fri, July 29, 2011 8:55:07 AM >> >> *Subject:* Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities >> >> I'm sorry. I'm probably just being an ignorant non-philosopher but, well, >> here goes. >> >> Let the Cummerbund (big C) be defined as being that which all dogs desire >> AND also all dogs AND also the ultimate form of Dog (in the platonic world >> of forms sense). Now, do we have a lojban gismu for this new idea? >> >> If you want to talk about some concept that nobody has ever dreamt of >> before then just coin a new fu'ivla and spend a few years writing >> philosophical argle-bargle to describe what this fu'ivla really *means* in >> the deep philosophical sense. >> >> Ok, me being a jerk aside. It sounds like in it's more generic form, >> you're asking if it's possible to: >> Describe X as being A AND B but while also specifying that A and B are in >> reality the same thing and then to take X, A, AND B and refer to them as a >> single thing. >> >> lo kamjorne be fa ABU bei BY be'o noi ri du ra ku'o jo'u ABY jo'u BY >> >> Incidentally, is there a better way to refer to abu and by in the general >> case {lo broda be abu bei by be'o poi }. >> My first thought was {lo se ke'a} and {lo te ke'a} but it turns out that >> those are not legal. >> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Escape Landsome wrote: >> >>> Well, the continuum-based semantics is a part of some linguistics >>> systems, e.g. Culioli's semantics, but I won't argue about this now. >>> >>> The point is that an intrication of two notions *should* be a notion >>> of its own. Write it A+B if something is both A and B, as in >>> multiple object-oriented-programming inheritance... >>> >>> The Question (with big Q) is both a quest and the specific questions >>> that embody this specific quest : I admit this is to some point >>> non-logical, or, as you say, argle-bargle, but philosophy is full of >>> such argle-bargle, and it benefits it... The Question is somewhat >>> like the Dao. Do you know the Dao ? I guess you do. Dao is a word >>> that means "Way", and that suggests a Principle, or a Cause, or an >>> Order, or a Law, or Means. So, by this same OOP-multiple inheritance >>> scheme, Dao is the "sum" of all of these notions. If you were right, >>> a good lojbanist should use a dozen of lojban words tied together to >>> say "Dao", or perhaps, as I guess, he should create a special new word >>> to convey the special meaning of it. >>> >>> That's the same question with the Question (no pun intended). Either >>> it is just argle-bargle, and we replace the word "Question" by either >>> "quest" or "question" or "questioning" in the opus (but then, we miss >>> the philosophic point which is to convey the idea that all three >>> things amount to the same existentialist process), either this is *no* >>> argle-bargle (that is, we admit a notion can cross several other >>> notions and mix them together), and we need to say "the >>> quest+question+questioning" each time we want to translate the words >>> "the Question"... or perhaps, we just say "the shmurf", assuming >>> shmurf is the neologism created to term "Question". >>> >>> -- .esk >>> >>> -- >>> 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@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. >>> >>> >> -- >> 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@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. >> >> -- >> 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@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. >> > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --20cf3001b85d9c591e04a93813ca Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable oh I see what you're saying. =A0If you're trying to say "X and= Y and Z (which are all the same thing)" then you end up with (as an e= xample) "my shirt AND the shirt that I am wearing AND the shirt that I= have on (all of which are the same thing)" where clearly any one of t= hese expressions refers to the same thing such that I might just as well ha= ve said "my shirt".

I guess the idea is to say that A, B, and C are all conventi= onally thought of as being different things but I (the author) declare that= they are the same thing. =A0But then at that point you make pointless the = idea of this concept being A + B + C because they're all the same.

So esk, have you considered the paradoxical nature of c= laiming that X is A + B + C (implying that A,B and C are distinct things su= ch that it is useful to declare X as being an amalgamation of all three) an= d then with the same expression also say that A, B and C are in fact the sa= me things as one another?

Or is my understanding of what you're trying to exp= ress off?

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:17 P= M, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Still, if they are the same, the r= esult is either one of them..


Sent: Fri, July 29, 20= 11 9:28:16 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other= technicalities

I meant A together with B not the logical AND.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:21 AM, John E Clifford &= lt;kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
I do hope that what you are desc= ribing is not quite the point.=A0 A AND B (in just about any sense of AND) = is just A if A and B are the same. and, if that is X, then X is A, too.=A0 = So, assuming we have a word for A (B would do just=A0 as well) we have a wo= rd for X.=A0 I assume something more is meant, but I cannot elicit a cohere= nt description of what that is.=A0 I am inclined to doubt that what is want= ed is a concept no one ever dreamed of before, but it is not likely to be i= n the current Lojban vocabulary -- L doesn't do a lot of philosophy and= what it does tends to be analytic, not phenomenological/existentialist.=A0= The problem with finding a new word for it -- if we insist on an analytic = construction -- is the nebulousness of the notion, which seems to defy analysis (skipping over understanding).=A0 If it should ever become (relatively) cl= ear, a proper analytic construction would be easy.=A0=A0 In the meantime, j= ust about anything that is in proper form and not already used will do fine= (with the book you mentioned attached, of course).=A0 Humpty-dumptyism has= it uses.


From: Luke Bergen <lukea= bergen@gmail.com>
To:<= /b> lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 29, 2011 8:5= 5:07 AM

Subject: Re:= [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities

I'm sorry. =A0I'm probably just being an ignorant non-philosopher b= ut, well, here goes.

Let the Cummerbund=A0(big C) be def= ined as being that which all dogs desire AND also all dogs AND also the ult= imate form of Dog (in the platonic world of forms sense). =A0Now, do we hav= e a lojban gismu for this new idea?

If you want to talk about some concept that nobody has = ever dreamt of before then just coin a new fu'ivla and spend a few year= s writing philosophical argle-bargle to describe what this fu'ivla real= ly means=A0in the deep philosophical sense.

Ok, me being a jerk aside. =A0It sounds like in it'= s more generic form, you're asking if it's possible to:
D= escribe X as being A AND B but while also specifying that A and B are in re= ality the same thing and then to take X, A, AND B and refer to them as a si= ngle thing.

lo kamjorne be fa ABU bei BY be'o noi ri du ra ku&#= 39;o jo'u ABY jo'u BY

Incidentally, is the= re a better way to refer to abu and by in the general case {lo broda be abu= bei by be'o poi <want to refer to abu and by here>}. =A0My first= thought was {lo se ke'a} and {lo te ke'a} but it turns out that th= ose are not legal.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Escape= Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Well, the continuum-based semantics is a part of some linguistics
systems, e.g. Culioli's semantics, but I won't argue about this now= .

The point is that an intrication of two notions *should* be a notion
of its own. =A0 Write it A+B if something is both A and B, as in
multiple object-oriented-programming inheritance...

The Question (with big Q) is both a quest and the specific questions
that embody this specific quest : I admit this is to some point
non-logical, or, as you say, argle-bargle, but philosophy is full of
such argle-bargle, and it benefits it... =A0The Question is somewhat
like the Dao. =A0Do you know the Dao ? =A0I guess you do. =A0 Dao is a word=
that means "Way", and that suggests a Principle, or a Cause, or a= n
Order, or a Law, or Means. =A0 So, by this same OOP-multiple inheritance scheme, Dao is the "sum" of all of these notions. =A0 If you were= right,
a good lojbanist should use a dozen of lojban words tied together to
say "Dao", or perhaps, as I guess, he should create a special new= word
to convey the special meaning of it.

That's the same question with the Question (no pun intended). =A0 Eithe= r
it is just argle-bargle, and we replace the word "Question" by ei= ther
"quest" or "question" or "questioning" in the= opus (but then, we miss
the philosophic point which is to convey the idea that all three
things amount to the same existentialist process), either this is *no*
argle-bargle (that is, we admit a notion can cross several other
notions and mix them together), and we need to say "the
quest+question+questioning" each time we want to translate the words "the Question"... =A0or perhaps, we just say "the shmurf&quo= t;, assuming
shmurf is the neologism created to term "Question".

-- .esk

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
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.
--20cf3001b85d9c591e04a93813ca--