From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Sep 18 13:08:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 18 Sep 2002 20:08:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 26287 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 20:08:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2002 20:08:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 20:08:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17rl8q-0004rl-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:09:44 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17rl8D-0004rT-00; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:09:05 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17rl89-0004rK-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:09:01 -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 g8IKDHwD010416 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:13:17 -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 g8IKDH0s010415 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:13:17 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:13:17 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Message-ID: <20020918201317.GA10120@allusion.net> References: <19d.8e35557.2ab9e5d9@aol.com> <20020918151032.GA7613@allusion.net> <20020918145928.L1238@skunk.reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="envbJBWh7q8WU6mo" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020918145928.L1238@skunk.reutershealth.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1312 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 --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 02:59:28PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 10:10:32AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote: >=20 > > Furthermore, though the word order leads to different likely interpreta= tion > > it doesn't change the possible meanings. > > ro da prami de > > Can mean "Everyone loves >=3Done other (the same) person" just as much = as it > > can mean "Everyone loves someone (else)". >=20 > In fact it means neither: it means "Everyone loves some person(s), possib= ly > different person(s) for each or even themselves." When sumti appear in a > bridi with no prenex, their scope is uniformly left-to-right. >=20 > Unless you mean that the Lojban statement is entailed by either English > sentence, which is certainly true. That was what I meant. Obviously the lojban sentence isn't even talking about people only, neccesarily. > > I was discussing this point with some people on IRC a while back, and > > bunk I say! bunk! Of course unicorns exist: they're concepts.=20=20 >=20 > Not at all. The concept of a unicorn is a concept, and it exists, just > as the concept of a horse exists. Otherwise we are in the position of > saying that horses are animals, but unicorns are concepts, which is very = ugly. >=20 > > I say {mi djica lenu lo pavyseljirna cu klama ti} there's nothing wrong > > with the bridi, as I really do desire that su'o lo ro pavyseljirna > > come (even if ro =3D 0; the su'o is just the number I'm wanting). >=20 > There *is* nothing wrong, because nu-events exist even if the things insi= de > don't. But lo pavyseljirna cu blabi, "some unicorn is white", that's > rubbish. >=20 > > Additionally, certainly you can dream a unicorn klama do, as unicorns > > *do* exist in dreams. With: > > da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi senva ledu'u da klama mi > > says "there is a unicorn such that I dreamt it came to me".=20=20 >=20 > That claim is false. A true claim would be: >=20 > mi senva ledu'u lo pavyseljirna da klama mi ru'a lu mi senva ledu'u da poi pavyseljirna zo'u da klama mi li'u > which puts the unicorn firmly inside the context of a proposition. Ahh... this way of looking at it works for me. Other than the correction you make to where to scope the prenex (which I agree with) it leads to the same result as my (less well formulated) assertion: Since unicorns only exist conceptually, talking about them at the bridi scope produces bridi which (though interesting, perhaps), are likely false. Talking about dreaming about them, or djica lezu'o citka da poi pavyseljirna, etc, all still work just fine. Thanks for making this a bit clearer to me. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9iN5cDrrilS51AZ8RAjF5AKDLHfL6ALDibH4rOMWuCC/WROmnzQCfftJ6 TFjrJNyjaodWoKl5sE1q9tY= =jB2B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo--