Re: [lojban] Re: semantic primes can define anything

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/27/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On 3/27/06, John E Clifford:
> > > >
> > > > I have always thought the "opinion" part
> of
> > > > {jinvi} was peripheral in a sense;
> > >
> > > Given the x4 of {jinvi} (the "grounds") it
> is
> > > hard to see how it could be peripheral.
> >
> > Well, since opinions don't require evidence,
> I
> > never could get those two together.
> 
> Perhaps opinions don't require evidence, but it
> is at least
> not unusual, when someone offers an opinion, to
> ask for the
> grounds on which it is based. OTOH, asking what
> grounds
> one has for thinking about someone, for
> example, sounds
> just bizarre.
> 
> Also "opine" is given as the gloss for {jinvi}
> and "opinion"
> for the x2, so opinion does seem to be the
> intended central
> meaning of {jinvi}.

Maybe, but it also seems the only thing available
(and poorly at that)for just simple thinking,
contemplating a propositions, as I would say. As
for evidence, it is even more common to ask for
it for beliefs (I am not sure why, since I don't
generally get the belief/opinion distinction
apparently being mae here) and yet {krici}
explicitly denies the possibility of asking for
grounds.   I am rapidly coming (back to, I
notice) the idea that the mental activities
portion of Lojban semantics is in almost as bad
shape as several others.  It is, alas, too late
to do a thorough overhaul but working out how to
say the missing pieces might be nice (and getting
rid of those unmarked opaques would be useful,
too).
 
> > >   mi pensi lo nu lo xarju cu vofli
> > >   I think of an event of pigs flying.
> >
> > But what do you think of it?  This always
> seems
> > elliptical to me.
> 
> I can think of flying pigs without thinking
> anything of it,
> and I don't think this is a special ability of
> mine. More
> commonly, I can think of a person for example
> without
> thinking anything in particular about them.

What would  that be like (Okay, since you do it,
is that like)?  The closest I come that I can
remember is a mental picture of the person out of
context.  This is rare for me, since I am not
very visual, so generally I think of a person in
a situation.  But of course, a mental picture is
also a situation "so-and-so looks like this" or
some such.
 
> > > > Or
> > > > do you want that {pensi2} is for
> > > propositional
> > > > content (which would eliminate a raft of
> > > > problems)?
> > >
> > > No, I think pensi is fine as it is, but
> that it
> > > is not for opinions.

I agree, since it does not carry affirmation. 
The question is whether it is propositional. I
gather you would say not or at least not
necessarily.


> > I didn't say anything about opinions: I can
> think
> > content without necessarily affirming it
> (indeed,
> > the need for that other pattern is why I have
> > trouble with {jinvi} as opinion).
> 
> I don't see a problem with using {pensi} for
> thinking
> of any kind of content, propositional or not.
> Even things
> like:
> 
>    mi pensi lo nu mi te vecnu lo karce
>    I am thinking of (I am considering) buying a
> car.

Good.  Wondering then can be thinking about a(n
indirect) question. Opining is thinking about
something and affirming it, claiming it to be
true extramentally.  And so on.  So we could use
{pensi} as a base.  Now if we can get rid of the
non-proprositional part (or rather treat it as
elliptical) we can actually get a fairly tidy bit
on mental activity.

> Sometimes the NSM prime THINK is used that way,
> but
> sometimes it is also used for opinions. So
> THINK is a blend
> of {pensi} and {jinvi}.

The more carefully I look at the cases, the more
"think about"s turn up.  On the other hand, we
have explicit comments in various places that
(until the controversy came up, at least) the
canonical form was "x thinks y about z" and all
the "think about"s are to be taken as short for
"x thinks something about z" This is not quite
{jinvi}, since affirmation is clearly not
involved; indeed contrary-to-facts are defined
with this device.  Of course, I want to say that
the "about" part is just subject-raising and
logically bad, so eliminable.  But I don't expect
that to carry any weight in NSM terms (nor Lojban
neither). I guess that does amount to a blend of
{pensi} and {jinvi}, but it would seem -- as
matters now stand -- to have to be expressed with
{jinvi} to get the places in (we can {zi'o} out
the others I suppose).