Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like

[maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com>]

2011/11/18 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> You seemed to think the given definitions made sense...
>
I think that the given definitions of {ka'e} make some sense from a
naturalistic point of view, and that they follow mostly from {kakne}.
I am not saying that I think that it should be this way, just that it
is.

>> 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.
>
If you're saying that CAhA should not stand in for {kakne}, then I
agree with you for the reasons you give.  But people are going to
learn {ka'e} by what they read in the reference materials, and from
established usage, not by what the formal grammar's scope rules imply,
and the reference materials describe something closer to {kakne} than
to {cumki}, and this includes the somewhat muddled BPFK definition.

The established usage I cannot speak to due to my limited familiarity
with it. But now that Bob LeChevalier weighed in, but I would be
astounded if {ka'e} is closer to {cumki} than to {kakne}.

>> 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
>
I didn't come here to make unwelcome suggestions, but this is an issue
that Lojban should not monkey around with.  Modal-logical operators
are both extremely useful in ordinary conversation and are primitive
in logic. They are essential in Montague's program and will be needed
by Martin Bays or anyone else who is going to take a crack at a
model-theoretical formalization.  At the minimum I urge the admission
of {ne'e}, which would be very useful in its own right and would fill
a major gap in Lojban (with an added benefit that its uncontaminated
counterpart can be gotten from {naku ne'eku naku} if desired).  I
highly doubt that there will ever arise a better reason to assign an
unassigned CV'V cmavo .  Just my 2 cents.

-- 
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.