Subject: Re: [lojban] .uanai ne'i le velcli

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:09:07 EDT

In a message dated 8/19/2002 10:03:19 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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).