[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
What is being used here is, as always in these cases, the sentence as a physical form. And it can be used for the two things, though perhaps not in the same circumstances.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:18, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías, On 10/10/2014 01:49:
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto: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.
>
> To insist that "(bridi)" express the same proposition when bare and when in "operator (bridi)" is to insist that the syntax/logical form of bridi must be determined solely by their morphophonological structure and not rules, such as scope-leaping, that allow (carefully regulated) mismatches. Such an insistence fosters simplicity of rules, but is not very utilitarian. Lojban already has mismatches for sure, e.g. "(na ku zo'u) ma broda".
>
> Take the present case as an example. Suppose you want to say "zo'e ge broda gi poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u ke'a brodu". By the candidate rules I'm counterposing to yours, that could simply be rendered as the morphophonologically simpler "mi jinvi lo du'u lo broda cu brodu".
>
>> I have always interpreted "noi" as introducing a clause with
>> independent illocutionary force, yes.
>
> I had begun to formulate a response discussion the pros and cons of this from a design perspective, considering its utility, its systemic relationship with other relative phrases, and so forth, but I gave up at the methodological madness of inventing a language by starting with a fixed set of very vaguely defined function words and then trying to decide precisely what they 'do mean' or 'should mean'. Instead I will content myself with simply establishing what you think things should mean.
>
>> 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?
>
> No, I wouldn't agree. I think it only asks a question and doesn't describe the asking of a question, and that is of course therefore why I think that the asking of a question, rather than only the description of the asking of a question, can be argument of a predicate.
>
>> 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.
>
> In "use it for both things at the same time", what is "it"? As I understand it, I'm saying that the logical form for the sentence contains only the illocution "I hereby ask whether", while you are saying it contains both the illocution and a separate referential description of the illocution. But in that case, there is nothing that is being used for both things at the same time.
>
> --And.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.