Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like

[maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Bob LeChevalier, President and
Founder - LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> 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?!  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.
>
> That was the intent (or rather the "subject" rather than x1, since you could
> access the x2 with "se brivla" etc), though I admit that I didn't and still
> don't really understand why it couldn't apply to one of the other places.
>
> If I make a ka'e capability claim involving all the places of klama, then
> the claim applies just as much to the place gone to as to the go-er.  If I
> can go to a place (from somewhere else by some route), then that place can
> be gone to by me, and likewise, if I cannot, then it cannot.
>
I have to disagree; I think that {kakne} capability manifests itself
differently among each of the bridi places.  Specifically the capacity
of a goer to be a goer is expressible as something like {lo ka ka'e
klama}, while the capacity to be a place gone-to is {lo ka ka'e se
klama} -- assuming that {ka'e} carries from {kakne}, which is
something that xorxes disputes.


>>>> 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".
>
> "possible" (cumki) seems to ONLY be about events, whereas I thought ka'e and
> CAhA was more about the sumti that participate in the events.  Maybe there
> isn't a lot of difference, though.
>
I agree with you here about {cumki} and {kakne}.  In ordinary
conversation, often the difference is not great, as the non-existence
of purely modal-logical operators in Lojban up until now would seem to
prove.   But from a logical point of view, the difference is rather
important.


> Or maybe pc and I understood at the time that necessity was not something
> covered in CAhA, (since I am pretty sure he has *at least* a "foggiest
> notion".)
>
Sounds like someone has some 'splainin to do.

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.