[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and CAhA once again. Possible worlds.
On Friday, August 31, 2012 11:39:43 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:la gleki, On 31/08/2012 17:48:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:34:20 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
>
> Gleki Arxokuna, On 14/08/2012 18:23:
> > I wish Robin started using {mu'ei} again but
> > it's really when usage decides. May be human brain just doesn't want
> > to deal with A-level at such level of precision. May be {ka'e/na
> > ka'e/ka'ei/bia'i} or even {bi'ai} is enough.
>
> The evidence of natural language is to the contrary. The could/probably/would contrast is the some/most/all contrast.
>
> > The use of {da'i} is interesting. For a logical language it's
> > completely deplorable, because there's a complete mismatch between
> > the lexicosyntactic form and the logical form, and no explicit rule
> > about how to get from one to the other -- it works by mere stipulated
> > magic. But it caught on among those impatient to be actively using
> > the language, and nicely illustrated the fundamental incompatibility
> > between a loglang and a language governed by the principle of "let
> > usage decide".
> >
> > May be we can determine the most common usage of {da'i} and redefine
> > it from the point of view of A/M/F-level scheme? May be we should
> > perform analysis of Lojban corpus and tatoeba sentences?
>
> {da'i} is in UI, isn't it? So it doesn't have the right grammatical properties.
>
> It is in UI. If I "discovered" A and F levels why not bind {da'i} to A-level i.e. make it a synonym of {ka'e} but without changing the grammar and selmaho
> and {da'inai} would be "equal" to {ca'a}.
Because {da'i} should be a marker of mood -- of hypothetical, unassertive mood; whereas, ka'e is a modal of possibility. Modals involve quantification over possible states of affairs of various sorts.
I don't see much difference. Who counts over possible worlds? The speaker. Does {romu'ei} mean really every possible world? I think it refers to all the possible worlds that the speaker has in mind.
{da'i} doesn't count possible worlds but instead refers to their existence. May be it's not {ka'e} but {ka'ei=su'opame'iromu'ei}.
Next. Robin said that cumki and Ko could work in this field too. Then why not use {da'i} together with {ju'o, la'a} to describe those possible worlds?
I just can see the lack of a scheme. A-level is now more or less described with {mu'ei}.
la xorxes was able to describe {nu'o,pu'i} as derivations of mu'ei and ca'a if ca'a describes F-level.
Now I have questions about {cumki, lakne, kanpe} and {ju'o,la'a,ba'a}, {da'i} and probably {sruma/ru'a}, how they are related to A- and F-levels.
Moods involve a relation between the speaker and the proposition -- the speaker asserts p to be true, the speaker wishes p were true, the speaker entertains the idea of p, the speaker asks whether p is true, and so forth.
(There's no harm in marking the protasis and/or apodosis of a conditional with da'i, but da'i doesn't generate conditional semantics.)
--And.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/lHhh6zKj44AJ.
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.