Re: [lojban] A summary on 'djica' etc.

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

@2 Raising replacement occurs all the time, but the argument for that claim 
involves a number of not universally accepted claims about the nature of deep 
structure.  It is usually not a problem and only becomes one when world-borders 
are crossed (well, maybe some other similar cases, but not many).  And one point 
of my remarks was exactly that it shouldn't be done in Lojban when world borders 
are crossed outward.  Of course, the other part is that the only way that an 
object term makes sense as x2 of 'djica' is as a raising from an event 
description, a claim with which I assume you disagree.  The support for it comes 
from the logic of 'djica' (and a number of other desire predicates, which may 
have various added features  -- like an obligatory purpose for 'nitci'): "if a 
(subjunctive) apple, then..."  doesn't make a lot of sense, or grammar either.  
I suppose there is some way around this to get the same results, but I haven't 
thought of it yet, nor, so far as I can recall, have you. Notice that border 
crossing inward is not a problem, and so 'mi djica ta' and similar claims with 
selected current objects are OK.

@car talk.  Actually, I think I am saying that 'mi pensi lo karce' is a raise 
from 'mi pensi tu'a lo karce'.  I haven't looked at the logic of 'pensi' yet, 
but I suspect it is subjunctive or, at least, subjective, and so borders get 
crossed.  I may regret this later, of course, but for now I'll be consistent.

@5.  Events don't solve a problem here, they explain it.  If I take the apple 
out of 'lo nu mi citka lo plise' I take it out of the world(s) of these 
apple-eating events into the current one, where it may or may not do what is 
wanted of it (but there is no a priori reason to think it will).  But the event 
is already in this world (I know you don't agree with that either, but I 
persist) and so it passes through the border crossing unscathed.  I might have a 
problem saying which apple eating event(s) I desire, but I am sure it is the 
same one(s) whose occurrence would satisfy my desire and whose occurrence 
follows from that desire being satisfied.  This is just like the case of wanting 
*that*: its identity (more easily traced out here) remains unchanged through the 
subjunctive gear grinding.  Note: no token-type talk here; this is all about 
individuals.  (The "You must be willing to say which one" is a bit of hyperbole 
to drive home a point.)



----- Original Message ----..  
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 8:20:27 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] A summary on 'djica' etc.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:34 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 2,  There is in Lojban, as in many languages, a grammatical process called 
>raising, by which a term in a subordinate position is brought into a higher 
>clause.  It may come to replace that subordinate clause or to fill another 
>position in superordinate clause.

The definition in wikipedia doesn't say anything about replacement.
Lojban is full of predicates with sumti raising of the "in another
position" type. I don't think the replacement move works in Lojban as
a purely grammatical move. Using "tu'a ko'a" as short for "lo nu ko'a
co'e" is not replacement, because "ko'a" is not being raised there.
The case of "jai broda" is not replacement either, because "jai broda"
and "broda" are two different predicates.

> This is a sort of reverse of the process of eliding information that is 
>repeated, when it is "obvious". So, in "I'm thinking of buying a car" we don't 
>mention that it is me buying the car; that's obvious.  But similarly, I might 
>report those same thought as "I am thinking about a car", raising "a car" from 
>the clause "that I buy a car" (in there at some level) to replace it.

But you are talking of a semantic move here, not a syntactic one,
right? "mi pensi lo karce" is not a version of "mi pensi tu'a lo
karce", the way "mi pensi tu'a lo karce" is just a compact way of
saying "mi pensi lo nu lo karce cu co'e".

> 5.  [...] We need a particular apple which is the one I desire.  [...]

What frustrates me a bit is that one day you say you understand my
point about events not solving this "problem" at all, and the next day
you are back again presenting events as a "solution".

If you have a problem with "mi djica lo plise", you should have the
exact same problem with "mi djica lo plisynuncti". If you can't want
apples without there being a particular one you want then you also
can't want apple-eatings without there being a particular one you
want. If you have no problem with wanting apple-eatings, you shouldn't
have a problem with wanting apples. Apple-eatings are just as subject
to the type-token distinction (or whatever you want to call it) as
apples are.

> Of course, this problem does not arise if you pick your apple before hand, as 
>it were, in this story before going to the alternates.

And yet you don't need to pick your apple-eating before hand?
Apple-eatings can be just as distinguishable and individuated as
apples.

Suppose there are three apples on the table, and there are two
apple-eatings in the room. If I say I want an apple, you feel
compelled to ask me which one I'm talking about, why don't you feel
the same compulsion if I say I want an apple-eating?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


      

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.