Re: [lojban] Re: Duty, promice etc...

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

On 1/5/07, Jim Carter <jimc@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
> I can't resist this thread...  "I promise to jump off Lover's Leap if you
> don't marry me".  If the response were "Your promise is silly", it could
> reasonably be interpreted in all of the ways Cyril mentioned:
>
> "Jumping off Lover's Leap is silly" (but a careful speaker would say just
> that, not using "your promise" to represent the event promised).

Yes:

"Your promise, i.e. jumping off Lover's Leap if I don't marry you, is silly."

> "Promising to jump off the cliff is silly".  That's the best
> interpretation.

Really?

"Your promise, i.e. promising to jump off the cliff if I don't marry you,
is silly."

That doexsn't sound right to me. Of course it can be inferred from
"your promise is silly" that "your making such a silly promise is silly",
but that's not what "your promise is silly" says directly, as far as I
understand.

> "Promising that, and then actually doing it, is even more silly".

It is even more silly, I agree, but can you really say that "your promise
is silly" means:

"Your promise, i.e. promising to jump of the cliff, and then actually
doing it, is silly."

mu'o mi'e xorxes