Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>]

About the Capability vs Possibility question:

I think the word that is missing here is volition. "x1 is Capable of x2" should
be read as "x1 will (do) x2 if he wants", implying volition per x1.

Possibility is an unrelated concept. My ability to go per se doesn't imply
anything about the possibility or necessity of my going. Conversely,
the possibility of my going doesn't imply anything about the control I
have over it.

The verb "can" in English may express Capability, Possibility, and
possibly other things:
  * "I can swim." -> I'll swim if I want.
  * "This can be the answer to our problems!" -> It is possible that it is.
  * "Hey! You cannot smoke in here!" -> It is not allowed.

{kakne} in lojban is more useful as denoting Capability than Possibility
with a highlighted subject.


About CAhA:
I also agree with the reasons given by xorxes for it not making sense
that this selma'o denote Capability. However, the documentation has
indeed, at least, largely drifted towards the Capability interpretation.

I strongly +1 the idea that something be done to give lojban clear
modal logic tags, either by rewriting the CAhA documentation or by
devising experimental cmavo, not because I like changes, but because
this is too good a reason for one.


About selbri:
Till now, the only gismu I recognize as fit to express modal aspects is {cumki}.


meta:
Shouldn't we branch this modal discussion to another thread?

mu'o mi'e .asiz.

On 19 November 2011 12:22, maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and
> Founder - LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>> maikxlx wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Bob LeChevalier, President and
>>> Founder - LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> But of course the capability of lo klama to be such is the capability to
>> klama x2 x3 x4 x5, and its capability is dependent on the values of x2, x3,
>> x4, and x5, and correspondingly, the claim seems evident that this is
>> strongly associated with the capability of that x2 to se klama x1 x3 x4 x5,
>> and with the capability of x3 to te klama x2 x1 x4 x5, etc.
>>
> I agree that there is a family of co-dependent capabilities.  The rub
> in the context of the larger discussion is the exact relationship of
> this family to {cumki}.  Supposing for a moment that it could be
> purified of obvious malrarna, I would still say that {kakne} makes a
> stronger claim than {cumki} does, because the former imputes to an
> individual in the actual world an inherent property, whereas the
> latter merely claims that the overall proposition is possible, or to
> put it equivalently, that it is true in some possible state of
> affairs.  What we want out of {ka'e} is only the latter, and if it
> can't guarantee that, then something else is needed IMHO.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and
> Founder - LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>> I think Plan B was  whimsical sketch on purpose, intending to make fun of
>> the perfectionists who were perpetually proposing something new and
>> different to reform the language.
>>
> I don't know.  It was written in a pretty deadpan tone.
>
>> My insight, such as it was, is that for a language to be a LANGUAGE, the
>> significance of a stable and active user base is all important.  A
>> theoretical construct that no one (or only the inventor) uses might be more
>> logical, but it would not really be a language.  I did not win friends in
>> the conlang community with this attitude %^)
>> --
> Well, even as a "perfectionist" that might disagree with you, I'd say
> you must have done something right, because the fact of the matter is
> that Lojban is the only game in town.
>
>> Bob LeChevalier    lojbab@lojban.org    www.lojban.org
>> President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
>
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.