Subject: Re: [lojban] The 16 propositional attitude predicates

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 04:56:02 +0000

la djorden cusku di'e

>The example that came to mind was from a few minutes before you sent
>your first email on IRC:
>[17:34] <fracture> .u'i .i mi na se cinri ledu'u makau zvati do .i ma fasnu
>(jay was being clever about answering the question "mo vi do").
>
>There are other gismu like this which can take du'u but usually
>don't, but I'm sure you can find them on your own.

Ok, yes, there are many of that type. Those don't present
any problem as they accept an object or situation as well
as a fact, so they already are the way I suggest that the 16
fact-only might end up.

> > Well, {mi morji le li'i mi verba} certainly does not fit the
> > place structure "x1 remembers that x2 is true about x3", so this
> > just reinforces my claim that we tend to use it "wrong": even
> > the Book does it!
>
>I'm sorry, but a few paragraphs of description supercedes anything
>said in a single sentence as far as I'm concerned. The definitions
>of gismu in the gismu list are very short I think you're maybe
>trying to be too strict to the meanings of the *english* words
>there, rather than reading the real (larger) description of morji
>found in CLL.

No, I'm reading the gi'uste as a whole, and those 16 predicates
are clearly and distinctly marked as different. But if you accept
things like {mi morji le nu broda} or things like {mi morji do
le nu litru le frasygu'e}, then we are in agreement about {morji}.
I know this is in disagreement with what the gi'uste says, but
if you are happy reinterpreting things, I won't complain.

But what about the other 15, does the fact that we can reinterpret
the gi'uste on {morji} mean that we can also reinterpret it on the
others?

>What does "I know john" mean that "I know about john" doesn't?

You can know things about someone you don't know.

>If
>you want to say it as is used in more colloquial english you probably
>actually mean either
>	mi pu penmi la djan.
>or
>	mi gletu la djan.

The last one is Biblical more than colloquial. The meaning that
corresponds to Spanish "conocer" is not colloquial either, it is
very standard English. But in any case, this is not very relevant.
The question is, can x2 of djuno be other than a du'u, the way
the x2 of morji can be other than a du'u? This time the Book will
say no.

>If there is in fact a disagreement between the CLL and the gi'uste,
>I'd side with CLL (unless it's a typo or something (CLL has plenty
>of those)) because CLL's definitions (and *examples* mind you) are
>described in full paragraphs; not choppy 1-2 sentence things which
>really only explain a pseudo-translation that works when all the
>places have something in them (and which relies largely in some cases
>on a single "keyword"; which frequently (always) have multiple meanings
>in english (.oi la glicybau cu xlali)).

That's a reasonable position, but not one I can take. I think the
vocabulary works as a whole, so if a rule applies to one word it
should apply to others similar to it. And even if we don't do it
consciously, we will establish unconscious rules. I suspect quite
a few of these predicates will tend to go the way of {morji}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com