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

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

On 3/27/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 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.

As I recall, it was clarified at some point that the
"[without evidence]" of {krici} was really meant to be
"[not necessarily with evidence]".

> > 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.

What about thinking of a number, or of the colour red,
or of the word "red". Can you manage to think of one of
those without having to think some proposition about
them?

> > > > No, I think pensi is fine as it is, but
> > that it is not for opinions.
>
> I agree, since it does not carry affirmation.

I wouldn't say opinion carries affirmation either, although
perhaps it would be necessary to clarify what each of us
means by affirmation. In my view, affirmation is only possible
with an audience, whereas opinion does not need an audience.
I can have an opinion and never express it, but I cannot
make an affirmation without expressing something.

> The question is whether it is propositional. I
> gather you would say not or at least not
> necessarily.

Right, the object of {pensi} may but need not have propositional
content.

> >    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.

Yes. That would be more specifically {kucli}, but {pensi} should
be able to cover it too.

> Opining is thinking about
> something and affirming it, claiming it to be
> true extramentally.

I don't think so. I think having an opinion is not extramental,
and I think {jinvi} indicates having an opinion, not expressing it.
Affirming something would be {xusra}.

> And so on.  So we could use {pensi} as a base.

{pensi} lacks the belief component of {jinvi}, so you would
need some other way to get that in, either {jinvi} or {krici} or
something else.

mu'o mi'e xorxes