From pycyn@aol.com Mon Aug 19 14:09:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 19 Aug 2002 21:09:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 50794 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2002 21:09:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2002 21:09:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 21:09:09 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.188.cb0fa85 (18707) for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <188.cb0fa85.2a92b873@aol.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:09:07 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] .uanai ne'i le velcli To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_188.cb0fa85.2a92b873_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_188.cb0fa85.2a92b873_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2002 10:03:19 AM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > I had this same argument with xorxes already on jboste (bau la > lojban. though so it wasn't quite this lame). Check CLL chapter > 2, he's right -- certain attitudinals modify the meaning of the > bridi instead of just expressing how you feel. ".ei" is one of the > former. >> Doesn't seem to be the same argument at all. Of course {ei} modifies the meaning -- in some sense -- of the bridi. Using {ei} imposes or acknowledges an obligation of some sort (or at least tries to). And also takes the bridi out of the truth-test for significance: {ei ko'a broda} is not false if ko'a doesn't broda nor true if he does. If it is true-or-false at all, its truth value derives from some fundamental set of obligations (including, perhaps, who has the right to lay obs on others), not on performance (the hardest thing to learn in deontic logic is that strong p does not imply p, nor p imply weak p). But the issue here is whether an {ei} buried away in a {le nu} clause still has the effect of a one at the beginning, but just over this clause (we pass over the -- quite reasonable, grammatically -- interpretation that {mi morji le nu ei mi tavla} means "I ought to remember to talk."). My point would be that what I am remembering is that I have this obligation, which, to be sure, is a case of acknowledging it, but I am remembering acknowledging it, not acknowledging it again in remembering it. Hence, {mi bilga} the description that I have the obligation, seems more appropriate than {ei}, since I am not again taking on or laying on the obligation, I already have it, as I recall. (Should it be {eikau} to avoid the passed over interp? But no, {ei} in this poisition would modify {nu} and so, presumably, the bridi it abstracts). CLL 13 (2 has little to say on the issue). --part1_188.cb0fa85.2a92b873_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2002 10:03:19 AM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<

I had this same argument with xorxes already on jboste (bau la
lojban. though so it wasn't quite this lame). Check CLL chapter
2, he's right -- certain attitudinals modify the meaning of the
bridi instead of just expressing how you feel. ".ei" is one of the
former.

>>
Doesn't seem to be the same argument at all. Of course {ei} modifies the meaning -- in some sense -- of the bridi. Using {ei} imposes or acknowledges an obligation of some sort (or at least tries to). And also takes the bridi out of the truth-test for significance: {ei ko'a broda} is not false if ko'a doesn't broda nor true if he does. If it is true-or-false at all, its truth value derives from some fundamental set of obligations (including, perhaps, who has the right to lay obs on others), not on performance (the hardest thing to learn in deontic logic is that strong p does not imply p, nor p imply weak p).
But the issue here is whether an {ei} buried away in a {le nu} clause still has the effect of a one at the beginning, but just over this clause (we pass over the -- quite reasonable, grammatically -- interpretation that {mi morji le nu ei mi tavla} means "I ought to remember to talk."). My point would be that what I am remembering is that I have this obligation, which, to be sure, is a case of acknowledging it, but I am remembering acknowledging it, not acknowledging it again in remembering it. Hence, {mi bilga} the description that I have the obligation, seems more appropriate than {ei}, since I am not again taking on or laying on the obligation, I already have it, as I recall.
(Should it be {eikau} to avoid the passed over interp? But no, {ei} in this poisition would modify {nu} and so, presumably, the bridi it abstracts).
CLL 13 (2 has little to say on the issue).

--part1_188.cb0fa85.2a92b873_boundary--