From pycyn@aol.com Mon Aug 19 06:14:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 19 Aug 2002 13:14:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 9003 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2002 13:14:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2002 13:14:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 13:14:49 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.178.d3db8a1 (3980) for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:14:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <178.d3db8a1.2a924943@aol.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:14:43 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] .uanai ne'i le velcli To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_178.d3db8a1.2a924943_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_178.d3db8a1.2a924943_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/18/2002 10:25:42 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > I had to look up "litotes", thanks for the new word. My dictionary > says it is "an understatement in which an affirmative is expressed > by the negative of the contrary (as in "not a bad singer")", so > it wouldn't quite apply. >> True, but the word is used broadly for any form of understatement, at least by > logicians, if not rhetoricians. << In any case, I would have agreed with you not very long ago, but the spatial tense discussion has left me a bit uneasy about how exactly the additional (tagged) places fit with the event in question. If the location need not be connected to each participant, why does the language have to be connected with every participant? Of course, if you talk of "sending mail" it sounds weird to connect it to a language, but if you talk of "being a mail message that is sent", it certainly can have a language. And {mrilu} is no more "sending mail" than "being a mailed message", it all depends on where we focus. I don't have a clear position on the issue right now, just a lot of doubts.>> I take it that the role of added places is simply to add new places into the mix, making, in this case, a six-place peredicate out of a five-. To be sure, it is not clear what the relation of this new place is to the original ones -- it might connect to the sender, the sent, the origin, destination, or the service, I suppose and, of these, only the sent makes any sense. Or it might have a more holistic role. At best, the expression is unclear, at worst meaningless (so "nonsense" is a not understated claim). The other versions are certainly better. << > lo >pendo poi mi pu to'e morji le nu ei mi tavla ke'a li'u > >> > >I am unsure about the force of {ei} buried under several subordinators; I take UIs to apply in the subordinated phrase in which they appear, with minimum scope. It feels much better using them that way than trying to figure out what they would mean if they had widest scope. >> My concern was not about the scope (directly) but about the function -- can I still be *expressing* a sense of obligation at this depth, or must I be only *reporting* it (as I seem to be)? I am (obviously) inclined to the view that at this indirect a level I am just reporting that I had felt an obligation (though, as noted, even that is uncertain), not expressing one felt now. But I don't have better arguments for this than the subordination and that to a cognitive predicate, so I am open to argument (and, of course, we may disagree about what {ei} does all by itself at top level). --part1_178.d3db8a1.2a924943_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/18/2002 10:25:42 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

I had to look up "litotes", thanks for the new word. My dictionary
says it is "an understatement in which an affirmative is expressed
by the negative of the contrary (as in "not a bad singer")", so
it wouldn't quite apply.

>>

True, but the word is used broadly for any form of understatement, at least by

logicians, if not rhetoricians

.

<<
In any case, I would have agreed with you not very long ago, but
the spatial tense discussion has left me a bit uneasy about how
exactly the additional (tagged) places fit with the event in
question. If the location need not be connected to each participant,
why does the language have to be connected with every participant?
Of course, if you talk of "sending mail" it sounds weird to
connect it to a language, but if you talk of "being a mail message
that is sent", it certainly can have a language. And {mrilu} is no
more "sending mail" than "being a mailed message", it all depends
on where we focus. I don't have a clear position on the issue right
now, just a lot of doubts.>>

I take it that the role of added places is simply to add new places into the mix, making, in this case, a six-place peredicate out of a five-. To be sure, it is not clear what the relation of this new place is to the original ones -- it might connect to the sender, the sent, the origin, destination, or the service, I suppose and, of these, only the sent makes any sense. Or it might have a more holistic role. At best, the expression is unclear, at worst meaningless (so "nonsense" is a not understated claim). The other versions are certainly better.
<<
> lo
>pendo poi mi pu to'e morji le nu ei mi tavla ke'a li'u
> >>
>
>I am unsure about the force of {ei} buried under several subordinators;

I take UIs to apply in the subordinated phrase in which they
appear, with minimum scope. It feels much better using them that
way than trying to figure out what they would mean if they had
widest scope.
>>

My concern was not about the scope (directly) but about the function -- can I still be *expressing* a sense of obligation at this depth, or must I be only *reporting* it (as I seem to be)? I am (obviously) inclined to the view that at this indirect a level I am just reporting that I had felt an obligation (though, as noted, even that is uncertain), not expressing one felt now. But I don't have better arguments for this than the subordination and that to a cognitive predicate, so I am open to argument (and, of course, we may disagree about what {ei} does all by itself at top level).

--part1_178.d3db8a1.2a924943_boundary--