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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:46:32 EDT

In a message dated 8/30/2002 7:32:32 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> 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
>>
Thanks for the list. It is useful to get these kinds of topical lists 
around, since they facilitate discussions of the particularities of 
individual members and of classes (cf the sorted 1-place list and the partial 
2- and 3- place ones.)

Without repeating all the details of xorxes proposal, that we can drop the x2 
and use a proposition in x3 with the addition of "that it is true" to the 
internal meaning, I see at least one problem (base-line considerations 
aside). The place to be dropped is, of course, x3, not x2. The subject of 
the proposition is already given in the proposition (and can be pulled out 
with {tu'a}) and so x3 is redundant. If permissible at all: since 
propositions are intensional, the sumti in them need not refer to actual 
objects and, therefore, cannot be pulled out of that context salve veritate. 
To be sure, x3 is OK when the subject is existent and is, indeed, the only 
way to pull it out (though with forethought we can put it in). But an 
non-existent referent cannot go in that place in a true sentence. 
Unfortunately, much of the discussion has focused on {djuno}, which is 
factive and so doesn deal in propositions with non-referential sumti, so the 
point is often missed. The other favorite for discussion has been {morji}, 
which is problematic because "remember" is so polysemic in English and people 
-- even those who do not usually screw up with the {djuno/slabu} distinction 
in Lojban -- tend to use {morji} across the "remember" board (and the lack 
of good words for the other concepts than the basic one does not help at 
all). 
To be sure, many of the 16, but at least {cilre}, and so {ctuca}, {krici} 
notoriously, {smadi}, {sruma}, {jijnu}, {jdice}, {jinvi}, {xusra}, {senpi}, 
{birti} and, arguably, {morji} are not. More than half the list. So, the 
peculiarities of these must be taken into account in any proposal about this 
group, the more so since it makes a significant difference (moving from true 
to false) sometimes.
We agree on what the final form should look like but disagree on 1) what it 
means and 2) what can go into the place that collapses 2 and 3. Actually, I 
think that the third place does have a use precisely for sneaking out an 
existing sumti from an intensional context in afterthought mode. ({tugni} 
makes it into the factive list simply because matters are usually either 
propositions or events and all of those exist.)