Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:23 AM, maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/11/17 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM, maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > 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?!

You seemed to think the given definitions made sense...

> 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.

But CAhAs are tags, and all other tags are bridi operators. If "ka'e
citka" and "ka'e se citka" have different meanings (besides reordered
places), CAhA works nothing like other tags.

And I don't know what you would do with "ka'e na broda", or "ka'e ku
na ku broda", given that "na" has bridi scope, and "ka'e" appears to
have scope over "na" in those cases.

>> 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".

Right, "ability" and "capability" should not be associated with CAhAs.

>  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')

In my experience, it is usually more effective to work with existing
cmavo and nudge their definitions in the right direction than propose
completely new cmavo.

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.