[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] request for a new gismu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episodic_memory
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:17:43 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:I have not been following this thread. I think that the problem may be
excessively literally reading some aspects of the gismu list while
ignoring others.
Ian Johnson wrote:
> This has already been mentioned, and the answer is the same: you should
> be able to say "I remember something about someone's experience of being
> pregnant" (for example, that she got morning sickness) and "I remember
> the experience of being pregnant [which I experienced myself]". Another
> way of looking at this is that the relationship between x2 and x3, x1
> aside, is fundamental to djuno/morji/most other gismu that involve du'u,
> which makes it so the zi'o deletion doesn't even entirely make sense.
>
> mi'e la latro'a mu'o
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturn...@gmail.com <mailto:mturn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 'Course, I don't know why no one has mentioned the obvious-to-me
> solution. Unlike the se morji, the _te_morji is not strongly-cased
> to du'u. There is nothing wrong with saying "mi morji [zi'o?] fi lo
> li'i se tarbi"?
>
> --gejyspa
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com
> <mailto:blindb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Not the same thing, though, as we've been saying repeatedly;
> remembering facts about an experience and the experience itself
> are different concepts.
>
> mi'e la latro'a mu'o
Until we know more about how the brain does memory, it seems
presumptuous to claim that these are different "concepts" as opposed to
different memories.
Wikipedia mentions episodic and semantic memory (see the title of this thread).
More importantly, morji was not created assuming these as different
concepts.
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:55 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de
> <mailto:sel...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> la .van. cu cusku di'e
>
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:09:17AM -0500, Craig Daniel
> wrote:
>
> Isn't this just the distinction between remembering
> a nu and
> remembering a du'u? Or am I missing something?
>
>
> More between {morji lo du'u} and {morji lo li'i}
> as was pointed out already.
>
> However, at the moment {morji} is restricted to {du'u}
> (see definition), so normally you shouldn't be allowed
> to use {morji} with {nu}/{li'i}.
morji is NOT restricted to du'u. The parenthetical use in the gismu
list is NOT a restriction (and indeed there aren't really ANY
restrictions so long as it is grammatical - the semantics of lojban has
not been formally defined).
ju'o no language can have it's semantics fully described.
It is an indication that, at the time the definition was written, it was
believed that the place would most commonly be filled by an abstraction
of that type, as opposed to a non-abstraction. These parenthetical
invocations of abstraction were added to the place structures as a
warning against sumti-raising, which was the then-major topic in
semantics of the time. I went through all of the place structures
trying to word them to get people to avoid raising a sumti from an
implied abstraction and using it in place of the abstraction.
A different abstraction is certainly permissible, and indeed the
definition says "remembers/recalls/recollects facts/memory x2" A du'u
is obviously what one remembers when one remembers a "fact", but is not
how one would normally express a "memory" which might indeed be a li'i.
I/we simply had not considered the full possibilities of how one
describes a memory, and thus did not specify how to do so in x2. We had
used du'u, and most important, wanted to stress that the place was
normally going to be an abstraction.
But I'm not sure that it can even be said that x2 of morji will always
be an abstraction. I might recall a quote from a book or a play, but
what I am recalling is probably not the "fact" that the quoted text was
in the book; I am recalling the quote itself, triggered by current
context that is telling me that the quote is relevant to that context.
One can claim, I think somewhat arbitrarily), that memorizing a quote is
a different sort of memory than a fact or an episode. If so, one might
make lujvo based on morji to distinguish the presumably different memory
types of facts, quotes, and episodes, and define the place structure of
the lujvo specific to your more restricted meaning.
(I think I should note that such specialized and restricted-meaning
lujvo are a type that is not necessarily achievable using jvajvo rules,
because we didn't really build the tools for semantic-rules-based
lujvo-making into the language - the concept of having rules to
determine place structures was an afterthought regularization devised by
Nick Nicolas as a result of his analysis of patterns of how people
actually were making lujvo).
lojbab
--
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
--
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/-/n7QZOuiUHIgJ.
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.