Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai

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

There are a few implicit defaults, as required for reasonably efficient and interesting conversation (imagine having to identify every sentence in a report as informative). Having vocabulary based rules seems a bad idea, though (and I don't think 'mi stidi' is a suggestion, anyhow).
"pass the blame" and "chicanery" are merely discriptive of the psychology invalid, not at all rhetoric. (and I am Marie of Rumania).  The serious purpose here is the description of a logical language, into which this rather dubious practice ought not fit.
I think that I would be reasonably content if everyone lived by your last sentence, as I am sure the will (and I am still M/R).
Sent from my iPad

On Jul 17, 2011, at 12:15, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:49 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We comeback to the question of Lojban being a logical language and what that means.  While I think we have wandered unconsciously pretty far from the original meaning, I don't see any reason to deliberately and consciously do so.  And one part of all that is to keep one grammatical distinction overt (or at least clearly marked).  Now it would be a possible one -- but one uniting slippage, I think, to allow that for certain predicate in certain contexts, when unmarked, to indicate a different speech act from the usual one (informative).
> 
> It is always possible to mark the it clearly when needed. I don't
> think having forced implicit defaults is a good idea.
> 
>> Did I really describe a generalization for 'dai'?
> 
> Not a complete genaralization, but what it would mean for "xu dai" and
> for "ko dai".
> 
>>  Other than to point out how ridiculous it was for any serious purpose (I have a logician's contempt for rhetoric)?
> 
> But why should language be limited to serious purposes? It needs to
> cover the whole gamut of purposes.
> 
>>  'e'u dai do klama' is a suggestion, if at all, that I am making (no one else has said it) and trying to pass the blame to someone else is mere chicanery.
> 
> "Trying to pass the blame"? "Chicanery"? What happened to your
> contempt for rhetoric?
> 
>>  In particular, your suggesting that you come seems inherently a vapid speech act, unless you sense an objection to it.  So, my making the suggestion that you come but projecting it on you is either to state those objections or to rebut them.  But, as with the question case, it is ultimately my speech act, not yours (not even one you intended, if the question cases are anything to go by).
> 
> Of course, a speech act is always an act performed by the speaker,
> that's the definition of speech act, isn't it? An act that someone
> performs by means of speech. That some speech acts may be performed by
> the speaker putting themselves in the shoes of someone else does not
> make it any less their act.
> 
> 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.