From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 17 01:31:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 17 Sep 2002 08:31:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 54402 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2002 08:31:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Sep 2002 08:31:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 2002 08:31:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.de.2d307cb0 (2612) for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 04:31:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 04:31:55 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_de.2d307cb0.2ab8427b_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_de.2d307cb0.2ab8427b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/16/2002 10:05:12 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: << > I > think I understand how Jorge's {lo'e} is supposed to work, but > I'm not yet convinced that {lo'e} is the right solution to generalize > over all examples that have popped up in discussion. >> Do tell us. The worst that is likely to happen is that xorxes says (as he does with all my tries) that that is not it at all. He may even try to explain why not (anything is possible). I agree that some of the cases that muddy the water are probably wrongly included, but I have trouble -- since I can't get a straight answer on what any of them mean -- which ones (but I am pretty sure about {pixra lo'e sincrboa}). << #I suppose you mean {se li'i}, "I'm a visual experiencer of #something being a boa". #>> #No, I meant {li'i} though I left out the {le} . Apparently the meaning has #changed since the word was created by someone who lived primarily in a #disembodied experiental mode. It hasn't changed its meaning AFAIK. It's just that "viska lo li'i" means "see an experience", not "have an experience of seeing". That doesn't mean there's no way to say "have the experience of seeing", though. >> I am not sure about {viska lo li'i ...} meaning "has a visual experience of", but I think that is about right. The word {li'i} was devised by a paraplegic (as far as I can remember, anyhow) who experience many events but could participate in none. The term was devised to allow him to express his view of the world -- and also be an aid in dealing withm delusional states and illusory presentations (the Indian chestnut about the snake and the rope got translated rather nicely using it, I recall.) Of course, this was in Loglan, but {li'i} was taken over -- at least originally -- directly and explicitly. << IMO, the Lojban technical term "abstraction" is primarily grammatical rather than semantic -- an event is indeed no more abstract than a participant in an event. So really "abstraction" just means "selmaho NU". {tu'a ko'a} is therefore an abbreviation for {le su'u ko'a co'e}, no more and no less. >> Well, one of the lines that led to the present mess was my claiming -- on the basis of both CLL and some logical conveniences -- that {nu} and {du'u} expressions had more in common than just grammar. That was, of course, in the midst of the token/type argle-bargle, now happily irrelevant. Since all events always exist in Lojban, they are surely somewhat more abstract than objects -- they exist even when the objects in them don't, for example. Just like propositions in that respect. And properties. So far as I can see, the releative abstractness of various referents plays no real role in the present problem. --part1_de.2d307cb0.2ab8427b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/16/2002 10:05:12 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:

<<

I
think I understand how Jorge's {lo'e} is supposed to work, but
I'm not yet convinced that {lo'e} is the right solution to generalize
over all examples that have popped up in discussion.

>>
Do tell us. The worst that is likely to happen is that xorxes says (as he does with all my tries) that that is not it at all. He may even try to explain why not (anything is possible).
I agree that some of the cases that muddy the water are probably wrongly included, but I have trouble -- since I can't get a straight answer on what any of them mean -- which ones (but I am pretty sure about {pixra lo'e sincrboa}).

<<
#I suppose you mean {se li'i}, "I'm a visual experiencer of
#something being a boa".
#>>
#No, I meant {li'i} though I left out the {le} . Apparently the meaning has
#changed since the word was created by someone who lived primarily in a
#disembodied experiental mode.

It hasn't changed its meaning AFAIK. It's just that "viska lo li'i" means
"see an experience", not "have an experience of seeing". That doesn't
mean there's no way to say "have the experience of seeing", though.
>>
I am not sure about {viska lo li'i ...} meaning "has a visual experience of", but I think that is about right. The word {li'i} was devised by a paraplegic (as far as I can remember, anyhow) who experience many events but could participate in none. The term was devised to allow him to express his view of the world -- and also be an aid in dealing withm delusional states and illusory presentations (the Indian chestnut about the snake and the rope got translated rather nicely using it, I recall.) Of course, this was in Loglan, but {li'i} was taken over -- at least originally -- directly and explicitly.

<<
IMO, the Lojban technical term "abstraction" is primarily grammatical
rather than semantic -- an event is indeed no more abstract than
a participant in an event. So really "abstraction" just means "selmaho
NU". {tu'a ko'a} is therefore an abbreviation for {le su'u ko'a co'e},
no more and no less.
>>
Well, one of the lines that led to the present mess was my claiming -- on the basis of both CLL and some logical conveniences -- that {nu} and {du'u} expressions had more in common than just grammar. That was, of course, in the midst of the token/type argle-bargle, now happily irrelevant. Since all events always exist in Lojban, they are surely somewhat more abstract than objects -- they exist even when the objects in them don't, for example. Just like propositions in that respect. And properties. So far as I can see, the releative abstractness of various referents plays no real role in the present problem.
--part1_de.2d307cb0.2ab8427b_boundary--