From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Aug 30 18:12:14 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 01:12:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 29060 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2002 01:12:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2002 01:12:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Aug 2002 01:12:13 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17kwoA-0000zY-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 18:12:14 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17kwnz-0000xq-00; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 18:12:03 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 30 Aug 2002 18:12:00 -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 17kwnt-0000xh-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 18:11:57 -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 g7V1H8IC009382 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:17:08 -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 g7V1H8Sn009381 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:17:08 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:17:08 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] The 16 propositional attitude predicates Message-ID: <20020831011708.GA9284@allusion.net> References: <20020831005652.GA9090@allusion.net> <20020830190125.D30502@miranda.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020830190125.D30502@miranda.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 857 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 --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 07:01:25PM -0600, Jay F Kominek wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 07:56:52PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > > 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.) > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > I fail to see why the meaning of zo'e needs to be special cased here, > when it means "unspecified". I see no reason why this is a language > failing, rather than a speaker failing. Lojban is providing the > speaker with the ability to specify "all the revelvant blah" if they > so desire. If they don't want to specify that, we're not supposed to > be forcing them. I was not suggesting it needs to be special cased. The zo'e strictly does mean "unspecified", but there is something actually there; and what it is is obviously whatever was relevant to the situation at hand (i.e. xorxes' whatever is the "relevant facts"). The speaker isn't *specifying* all the relevant blah when it is zo'e'd; but under most contexts it's pretty clear that that'd be what it is. I mean in theory you could have a situation where the speaker says mi djuno zo'e fi la lojban. and means (appropriately) mi djuno no da fi la lojban. but then the'd be more likely to say mi na djuno fi la lojban. than the first. (Unless they were deliberately attempting to mislead). > > 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 > We can't have Lojban changing (until the baseline ends). .ie.i'i And imho we shouldn't ever break things backwardly (at least not without doing a proper fork of the language or having a *very* good reason and little or no usage of the thing being broken). fa'o --=20 Jordan DeLong fracture@allusion.net --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9cBkUDrrilS51AZ8RAsAqAJ9+2BBeRTeK3yHT56dQ4Kzt7MRizQCeLJqr ukiV7W3yffWzT6WLvDoWbf4= =emU6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE--