[lojban-beginners] Re: Standards and states

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 8/16/07, turnip <turnip@bcpl.net> wrote:
> >===== Original Message From "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com> =====
> > (That also
> >solves the problem that {do'i} is being used to refer to an utterance
> >inside a quotation, which is not its normal use.)
>
>  Mama Bear was referring to the utterance of Ben (B) spoken to Papa.
>  I could have possibly used one of the counting anaphora, but they get
> confusing when dealing with nested sumtis.  I could have used an assignable
> KOhA, but Papa didn't assign the quote a value.  So I chose to use "do'i" and
> let the hearer, Papa, work it out.

That's why I said "not its normal use". Its normal use is to refer to an
utterance uttered in the current discourse, not to an utterance that has
been quoted in the current discourse. Ben is not a participant in the
current discourse.

It's not a big deal as far as I'm concerned. I think the cmavo of this
series should have been made to refer to the content of the utterances,
not to the utterances themselves anyway. In fact, the x1 of jetnu
asks for a {lo du'u ...}, or {la'e di'o}, not for a {lo se du'u ...} or {di'o}.

> >It's also not very clear to me why a comparison would be a state. I would
> have
> >said it was an achievement, eventually a process, perhaps it could even be an
> >activity, but a state is the last event-type I would classify it as.
> >
>  Okay, if I can remember my rationale from so long ago:  "It's okay to hurt
> X" is a true statement in a state of "you are being attacked by X".  Remove
> that state, the utterance is no longer true (for the sake of argument).

Being under attack is a state, yes. Attacking, on the other hand, is
an activity.

I don't know whether {lo nu gunta} would be a state or an activity,
since Lojban does not distinguish "attacking" from "being under attack".
Another reason not to use event typing.

> Similarly, when a state of comparison exists between Papa's patch and Ben's
> patches, Ben's statement is true, but not when you are in a state of (for
> example), dreaming, or just considered on its own, with no implied comparison
> (although Mama's first statement says that is is objectively true without
> qualification.

But what is a state of comparison? The state that something is in
while being compared with something else? {lo nu karbi} has an active
agent, even if it is not made explicit, so it is hard to picture it as a state.

mu'o mi'e xorxes