Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, but you must see that in principle it's perfectly possible for "lo" to be referential yet for "broda" to be part of the claim. Referentiality doesn't entail the description not being claimed.

Yes, I agree it's not a logical impossibility. But making "na ku zo'u (bridi)" not always express the negation of the proposition that "(bridi)" expresses makes the rules for the "na ku zo'u" operator much more complicated than they need to be.

In English, nonrestrictive relatives have independent assertive force, which is preserved even if the relative is within, say, a question or a command. If you think Lojban "noi" works that way, then I accept your reasoning, merely noting that there are other viable candidate meanings for "noi" (such as the one I had been thinking it had) that would invalidate your reasoning. (It's possible to have nonrestrictiveness without the independent illocutionary force, and I had supposed that in the absence of any specification of independent illocutionary force, noi is merely nonrestrictive.)

I have always interpreted "noi" as introducing a clause with independent illocutionary force, yes.

1: I (hereby) ask whether it is dinner time yet.
2. The reason for my asking whether it is dinner time yet is that I am hungry.

I (hereby) state that the reason for my asking whether it is dinner time yet is that I am hungry.

Yes, that's a better expansion of the second illocutionary act.

By my thinking, (1) consists of an illocutionary operator "I hereby ask wh", with 'propositional content' "it is dinner time yet". So if (2) is "the reason for X is that I am hungry", X is not the propositional content of (1) but rather is (1) itself, i.e. the illocution. Can you reexplain where exactly you differ?

Would you agree that "I ask whether it is dinner time yet" is being used in two different ways, in one case to ask a question and in the other case to describe the asking of a question? When it is used to refer to the asking of a question, it is an argument of "... is the reason for ...", but when used to ask a question, it is not. It just happens that we can conveniently use it for both things at the same time.

I think "I hereby ask ..." can be used as an illocutionary operator, but it can also be used as an ordinary predicate, which I think is what happens in 2.

mu'o mi'e xorxes