Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like

[maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com>]

2011/11/17 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM, maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2011/11/17 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >> "ka'e" is "fi'o se cumki". The connection with "kakne" is just mnemonic.
> >
> > Is this a newish development?  {ka'e} is also a rafsi of {kakne},
> > often a strong sign of relatedness.
>
> Almost all CV(')V cmavo have the same form of a rafsi of something. My
> guess is the ones that are related to that something are in  the
> minority. "ka'e" was obviously taken from "kakne", yes, but the
> connection is kind of malglico. Similarly "pe'i" comes from "pensi",
> "ti'e" from "tirna", and thare are other mnemonics that go through
> malglico glosses.
>
Right, but with e.g. {pi'o}, it's a no-brainer that the cmavo has
nothing to do with pianos despite sharing {pipno}'s rafsi's form.
With {ka'e}, one would not think it was such an accident.  In
principle of course no cmavo need to be related to the gismu with that
cmavo's form.

>
> > Meanwhile, vlasisku, BPFK section
> > CAhA, cmavo.txt and the CLL say nothing about {cumki} wrt {ka'e}.
>
> In jbovlaste "ka'e" is defined as "fi'o se cumki". But since I wrote
> that definition I guess I can't count that as evidence. :)
>
It's only in the Lojban record!  Side note: which should I rely on
more, vlasisku or jbovlaste?  I find vlasisku's cross linking and more
complete search results to be superior.   If someone rolled in the
BPFK definitions and CLL sections, it would be almost ideal.


> > Also, while {cumki} does express possibility, {ka'e}, from the given
> > definitions, seems to be more about ability than possibility.
>
> But whose ability? Each of the arguments of the relation modified by
> "ka'e"? The x1? The agent (assuming there is one)?
>
You're asking me?!  Well since you asked, from what I see, I would
definitely assume the x1, given the glosses, proposed keywords, and
examples in the CLL and BPFK.  In particular the CLL examples indicate
very clearly that {ka'e} and related CAhA are some sort of short-scope
selbri modifiers and emphatically _not_ true modal operators with
scope over the whole bridi.

> > In
> > order to say things like "it possibly brodas" and "it necessarily
> > brodas" I have to believe that these concepts should have their own
> > words, without mixing ability into it.
>
> I agree that the word "ability" should not appear in the definition of
> CAhAs, since events don't really have abilities.
>
It's not just "ability" that seems off, it's also the ambiguous "can"
and "innate capability" as well as the conspicuous absence of "may",
"might" and above all "POSSIBLE".

> > These primitive logical
> > operators strike me as vastly worth assigning two disyllables from
> > cmavo space, especially in light of some of the other things
> > available. Just my 2 cents.
>
> I agree. I have said before that it is extremely weird that a logical
> language doesn't have a word for the "necessarily" operator.
>
The fact that there is no necessity operator strongly suggests that
the language designers did not have the foggiest notion of modal logic
when they created {ka'e}.  It's clear to me from the evidence that
{ka'e} is at best roughly related, but not identical, to the
possibility operator.  At the very least, it seems muddled and
contaminated with malglico.  I do not read a ton of Lojban, but I find
it very doubtful that common usage is substantially better than the
flawed CLL examples.  Therefore I would respectfully suggest
considering two new uncontaminated cmavo to act as true and
contaminated, wide-scope modal-logical operators:

ci'a  = "it is possible that; possibly; may/might" (looks vaguely like 'cumki')
ne'e = "it is necessary that; necessarily; must" (looks vaguely like
'necessary')

> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
mu'o mi'e .maik.

-- 
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.