From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 11 06:46:38 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 11 Sep 2002 13:46:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 52121 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 13:46:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2002 13:46:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 13:46:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.11.) id r.113.172ae103 (3948) for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:46:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <113.172ae103.2ab0a338@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:46:32 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] The 16 propositional attitude predicates To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_113.172ae103.2ab0a338_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_113.172ae103.2ab0a338_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/30/2002 7:32:32 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com 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.) --part1_113.172ae103.2ab0a338_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/30/2002 7:32:32 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com 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.)
--part1_113.172ae103.2ab0a338_boundary--