Received: from mail-yh0-f64.google.com ([209.85.213.64]:60586) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu9df-0002lE-NE; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:33:28 -0800 Received: by mail-yh0-f64.google.com with SMTP id i57sf1593663yha.29 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:33:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:mime-version:date:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:x-http-useragent: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=iAyftU3qUYGB3cY6sdkbRCyYHNYnX+10A3B0dnBwuGk=; b=r0Hu6LwLNqDhYIhHEWzOkkdrr8sPiLTQJh3k5+5LoxzcbNXC39ZdYCwfv3RvVCKM36 lP6UaeDzjaRHXsWx4s2wb5AZpbJWMaODJUos6UiHvBFFEzet3tf/BC+ekTvbXFdoH2fA 8lUcvS5+O+otUu9t3DLFwFQnlChC5A794P4UrZBbQ4hsGTXydc5odNSC76VmZkbwgZ6q oDUHORoJQeBiL2cKvHhUq5I9QcCoED3AlGeRC55/Ue1CeaJ1O1L2UtEIT4qA8qicNykC akbD0YjYaHB7jophG0jiDVI+9FHrFGaos2nTSDoLpuav+l/Yhh4VSHeutQUnoRSgSlja TGSg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:mime-version:date:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:x-http-useragent: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=iAyftU3qUYGB3cY6sdkbRCyYHNYnX+10A3B0dnBwuGk=; b=Ap+yHJS06asEKg9O76GVq8wGTIFAfmfrGEYcD0Tm2m/aDkIsjVIlg6+dZVLf2WbNQ3 JD9rNNMID0KjMEdqXjdx8Db5CDTkaGAjJrCaMkvdh6EDgxHr/I9jCS/X9VerBmAmm2bM fLpYCNppouNI6oakAmROnNwj9gwnexJIfghI0RA3nVvb3DleZVuhiiRV6xrc/bOmmyDA q6yFqhLyki2HXgE/tgCzHYf/EB/cZ94gwdNlYIrQG4zV+T2dx+am0DNMilU0TUNe7IhX g7FfeIJ2gJFzS461TpxI9bribzDYx5X6Y1/HccskZutcJFmo5E1J/oxNDs/63KZ/PwtX hZsA== X-Received: by 10.50.108.200 with SMTP id hm8mr887551igb.10.1358029992891; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:33:12 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.37.141 with SMTP id y13ls1246425igj.4.canary; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:33:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.53.168 with SMTP id c8mr882358igp.17.1358029992455; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:33:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by gg5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:33:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:33:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References:

<7499b040-3f57-49e7-8ce7-6cb610419c61@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/537.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/23.0.1271.97 Safari/537.11,gzip(gfe) Message-ID: <78904c04-445c-4c24-be29-e6979b017c1c@gg5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: {da} and {zasti} From: guskant To: Lojban Beginners X-Original-Sender: gusni.kantu@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gusni.kantu@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gusni.kantu@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Content-Length: 5988 The definition of {zasti} itself is not important here. My point is to make x1 of {zasti} be in {lo nu ... kei} so that {zasti} would be explicitely free from any ontological duty. Because Lojban is constructed on Quine's logic, the ontology of Lojban should conform to Quine's ontology for consistency. Quine's semantical formula =E2=80=9CTo be= is to be the value of a variable=E2=80=9D means that a statement says "there i= s" if and only if the statement can be expressed in the form "=E2=88=83xf(x)", which can be expressed in Lojban with {da}. In my formula on {zasti}, the part {su'o da zo'u da me x1} says "there is" in the form conforming to Quine's ontology; by putting it in {lo nu ... kei}, {su'o da zo'u da me x1} becomes free from any truth value. With this formulation, x1 of {zasti} is free from any ontological duty, at the same time it still says "there is" in the form conforming to Quine's semantical formula. 2013/1/12 Ian Johnson : > Taking your definition as is, it does not assert existence. It merely > asserts that the x2 provides a frame of reference for making that decisio= n. > You would have to add a statement "...and decides that it actually does > happen" (or with du'u, which is probably better here, "actually is the > case"). I don't think trying to make a Lojban definition of {zasti} is go= ing > to prove very productive, myself, especially since the only approaches se= em > to be things like {manri} or {djuno} with djuno4, which are more poorly > understood than {zasti} anyways. > > If we're going to try, I'm hesitant to just adopt your Lojban definition = of > {zasti}, because as I said {manri} is poorly understood. Personally I thi= nk > both zasti2 and to a lesser extent manri3 are very strange. (Specifically= , I > think zasti2 is just entirely irrelevant to ontology, while manri3 should= be > encoded into the complex, currently poorly understood mass that is manri1= .) > I think "Whether x1 exists is decided by metaphysics x2" is something lik= e > {x2 manri lo du'u da me x1}, although even that is problematic for variou= s > xorlo reasons. (xorlo's {me}, by my current understanding, is a somewhat > strange beast compared with xorlo's other predicates, as it is the only o= ne > with explicit access to the inside.) > > mi'e la latro'a mu'o > As for ME, I don't understand your point, but discussion about the question on ME may fit for the main list, not for the beginners'. > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:28 AM, guskant wrote: >> >> Lojban is constructed on W.v.O.Quine's ontological standpoint (see the >> Complete Lojban Language (CLL), 1.6). According to Quine (1948), >> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is >> "[...] Now how are we to adjudicate among rival ontologies? Certainly >> the answer is not provided by the semantical formula =E2=80=9CTo be is t= o be >> the value of a variable=E2=80=9D; this formula serves rather, conversely= , in >> testing the conformity of a given remark or doctrine to a prior >> ontological standard. We look to bound variables in connection with >> ontology not in order to know what there is, but in order to know what >> a given remark or doctrine, ours or someone else=E2=80=99s, says there i= s; and >> this much is quite properly a problem involving language. But what >> there is is another question." >> >> In my words, Quine means: >> - the statement "=E2=88=83xf(x)" says that "there is x that satisfies f(= x)" >> under an ontological point of view; >> - this fact does not answer the question if there is REALLY such an x >> that satisfies f(x). >> >> With xorlo, Lojban becomes more clearly conformable to Quine's >> ontology. >> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/How+to+use+xorlo >> " [...] we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we do not make >> rulings on ontological or metaphysical issues; that is, we will not >> tell you whether phrase X has meaning or validity. [...]" >> >> >> {zasti} is only a gismu: "f" of f(x); Lojban should not owe {zasti} >> any ontological duty. >> At present, jbovlaste does not have Lojbanic definition of {zasti}, >> but I would suggest the following definition: >> {x1 zasti x2 x3} =3D {x2 manri lo nu su'o da zo'u da me x1 kei x3} =3D "= x2 >> is a frame of reference/standard for observing/measuring/determining >> the event that there is y that satisfies (y is x1) with/by rules x3." >> Here, the ontological statement {su'o da zo'u da me x1} is in the >> abstractor {nu ... kei}; the whole bridi therefore does not actually >> make a claim that {su'o da zo'u da me x1} (this inference is mainly >> based on the CLL, 9.7: "Example 7.1 claims that the plant grows, but >> only refers to the event of watering it in an abstraction bridi [...] >> without actually making a claim."); the whole bridi is therefore not >> an ontological statement. >> >> {da} is a variable to be bound, which should concern the ontological >> statement of Lojban. >> >> On these conditions, the statements of .arpis. are considered as >> follows: >> {da cevni} =3D {su'o da zo'u da cevni} =3D "=E2=88=83x (x is god)" =3D "= there is x >> that satisfies (x is god)." >> {lo cevni ku zasti} =3D {manri lo nu su'o da zo'u da me lo cevni} =3D "t= he >> event that there is x that satisfies (x is god) is observed/measured/ >> determined." >> {da poi cevni cu zasti} =3D {su'o da zo'u manri lo nu su'o de zo'u de me >> da poi cevni} =3D "there is x that satisfies (the event that there is y >> that satisfies (y is x that is god) is observed/measured/determined.)" >> >> Among them, only {da cevni} says "there is god." >> --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.