From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Aug 30 17:52:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 31 Aug 2002 00:52:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 72707 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2002 00:52:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2002 00:52:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Aug 2002 00:52:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17kwUe-0000se-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:52:04 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17kwUS-0000ry-00; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:51:53 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17kwUN-0000rn-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:51:47 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g7V0urIC009211 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:56:53 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g7V0uqMO009210 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:56:52 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:56:52 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] The 16 propositional attitude predicates Message-ID: <20020831005652.GA9090@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 855 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:29:11AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > There are 16 Lojban gismu that have a proposition (du'u) place, > a place for an object which the proposition is about, and a place > (or two places in the cases of {tugni} and {ctuca}) for a person > with a given attitude towards that proposition. The 16 predicates > are: [...] > The last three are missing the "about x3" place for some reason, > but I think they do belong to this group. I think this is an > exhaustive list, but I'd be greatful to know if I missed any > other gismu in this class. There are a number of gismu which can take abstactions of du'u type (but not only du'u). I dunno if you deliberately left them out or not. > Many of these predicates tend to be misused in Lojban, for > example many of us tend to say {mi morji le nu mi klama le zarci} > "I remember my going to the market" when we should say, for > example {mi morji le du'u vo'i fasnu kei le nu mi klama le zarci} > "I remember (that it happened) about my going to the market". > Not to mention things like {mi cilre la lojban}, {mi djuno la > djan}, {mi jimpe le nabmi}, etc. .ua this is an interesting point. Except for the fact that it is wrong acording to CLL. A quick grep finds in chapter 11, around ex 9.1 mi morji le li'i mi verba So clearly we can use more than just du'u there. > It is possible to get the meaning we want (or something close > enough) if we use the x3 for the object and fill x2 with "all > the relevant facts": >=20 > mi cilre fi la lojban: > I learn (all the relevant facts about) Lojban. > I learn Lojban. >=20 > mi djuno fi la djan > I know (all the relevant facts about) John. > I know John. >=20 > mi jimpe fi le nabmi > I understand (all the relevant facts about) the problem. > I understand the problem. >=20 > So it would seem that having "all the relevant facts" as a sort > default for x2 might be a useful thing. (In the case of {krici} > "all the relevant facts" are "that it exists", so that {mi krici > fi ko'a} would mean that I believe in ko'a, i.e. I believe that > ko'a exists.) Except that zo'e already means "all the relevant blah about whatever". Assuming you mean "all the relevant" in the sense I think you mean. Obviously you don't know everything about john in "mi djuno fi la djan.", the things relevant to the discussion are already expressed through the elided zo'e. > What happens if we put a proposition (du'u) in x3? That is > reasonable too, because propositions are valid topics > for other propositions. So for example: >=20 > mi djuno le du'u jetnu kei le du'u la djan klama le zarci > I know (that it is true) that John goes to the market. > I know that John goes to the market. >=20 > So, given that we can use x3 for everything, including propositions, > the reasonable thing would seem to be to always use x3, which > we can't go wrong with, and forget about x2. Indeed people already > do that in usage, as half the time we forget to restrict the sense > of many of these words to be purely propositional attitudes, > except that we don't mark it as x3. That means that in practice > we are simplifying the place structure to "x1 remembers fact > /situation/object x2", "x1 understands fact/situation/object x2", > "x1 discovers fact/situation/object x2", etc. Should we actively > promote this "mistake" of always ignoring x2? The advantages are > clear: we get broader and much more useful predicates. Are there > disadvantages? Sure, we can turn djuno into a european-style verb if we want to. Actually there wouldn't be a loss of what you can do: mi djuno le gerna poi ckini la lojban. or mi djuno le gerna pe la lojban. (with the simplified structure) are essentially the same as: mi djuno le gerna la lojban. with the current structure. I think either approach makes sense, but the latter has already been chosen, so we should stick with it. (we can't have lojban changing more frequently than a natlang changes, can we ? ;P ) --=20 Jordan DeLong fracture@allusion.net --NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9cBRUDrrilS51AZ8RAqVnAKDNpa1UL89X9WnyZSFRAwz9gV+LEgCgmpmP P2VjilbJZ+P6Hcm4rCYqhcg= =VeWi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh--