From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 20 17:47:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 00:47:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 99637 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 00:47:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 00:47:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 00:47:08 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17sYSF-0003nh-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:49:03 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17sYRc-0003n4-00; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:48:24 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-13.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17sYRQ-0003lY-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:48:12 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-58.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.58]) by mailbox-13.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B55C3E222; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 02:45:44 +0200 (DST) To: , Subject: RE: [lojban] I like Unicorns (was: Re: I like chocolate) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 01:47:23 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20020919110207.L16604-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 1416 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Xod: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > xod: > > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 08:32:42PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > {lo ka'e pavyseljirna cu blabi} or else {lo su'o mu'ei pavyseljirna > > > > > cu blabi} is true (according to my beliefs). {lo ca'a pavysljirna > > > > > cu blabi} is false. > > > > > > Translating from Andban to Lojban, I think he meant lo da'i pavyseljirna > > > is true, and lo da'inai pavyseljirna is false. > > > > Yes, {su'o mu'ei} -- and, by some accounts, {ka'e} -- means what you mean > > by {da'i} and likewise for {ca'a}/{da'i nai}. > > > > But you are not translating from Andban to Lojban. You are translating > > from saske jbobau to pilno jbobau. That is, in the usage of me, many > > years ago, and of current wiki-ites, {da'i} means "in some world > > other than This World", and {da'i nai} means "in This World}. However, > > this usage is incorrect. {da'i} means something like "let's suppose", > > "for argument's sake", or suchlike. {da'i mi klama} means "That I > > were to go." (hard to capture it in colloquial English). > > pe'i frica fi noda ma ma go'i > .i ju'oru'e zukte le mu'e casnu lo xanri kei le nu > sruma kei po'o You're fairly sure that the unreal is discussed for the sake of a sole assumption? I can't see what you're trying to say here. > .i ju'o zo da'i roroi mapti lo xanri But only and precisely because da'i entertains an idea without asserting it. > gi'e na ckini lo cusku mukti Of course -- otherwise you & others wouldn't use da'i as you do. And given that we are all largely making Lojban up as we go along, who's to say who's right? For my part, I note that {da'i}'s selmaho and its lexical neighbourhood (i.e. the meanings of the other related words in its selmaho) are more compatible with the meaning I ascribe to it. I am also pretty confident in my hunch (based on 'internal reconstruction', not on external history) that da'i originally meant what I say it does and that the meaning you attribute to it was originally the meaning of ka'e. That is, that's what the result would look like if someone had gone off and read and digested a book on modality, and then implemented it in Lojban/Loglan. To summarize, the semantic neighbours of da'i in UI all have to do with mood -- with kinds of illocutionary force. As for CAhE, it looks as though it was introduced to deal with realis/irrealis, and was later reconstrued by someone (who wrote the cmavo definitions) who didn;t understand it and was trying to make sense of it as involving notions of capability. > > Hence {mi viska lo da'i pavyseljirna} means something like > > "There is something that (I assert) I saw and that, let's > > suppose, is a unicorn". > > ..ienai .i ru'a tu'a zo da'i galfi pa sumti goi ko'a it certainly would if it follows {ku} > .i ja'o zo da'i sinxa le du'u ko'a xanri kei I know -- but I think you concluded this because you needed a way to mark irrealis, couldn't find one, then hunted around a bit more, hit on da'i as a possible candidate, misunderstood it, and proceeded to redefine it as an irrealis marker. > .enai le du'u ko'a zasti jenai mapti le selsku valsi I don't know whether I don't understand your Lojban, or you didn't understand what I said da'i meant... > ..i va'i cenba le kamjetnu .enai le ka ce'u smuni ce'u kei fo tu'a zo da'i I think this idea of discussing Lojban in Lojban is a bad idea. It's hard enough discussing Lojban in English, but when you multiply my incompetence in using Lojban by yours, and add that to the mix, it becomes impossible. "It varies in truth rather than meaning", I nonpedantically take your intended meaning to be. But I don't see how this bears on our interpretations of da'i. I read your previous message as saying da'i signals which worlds a predication is and isn't true of, while I say da'i signals whether the speaker is or isn't claiming the predication to be true. > > {mi viska lo da'i nai pavyseljirna} > > means "There is something that (I assert) I saw and > > that, (I assert) -- I am not merely entertaining the idea -- > > is a unicorn". > > > > Given that {ka'e} is contaminated by the notion of capability and > > {da'i} is incorrect for the purpose, how do we capture the desired > > notions? {su'o mu'ei} means "in some possible world", but it doesn't > > entail "not in This World", and there isn't a way of saying "in > > This World". Accordingly, I will add the following alternative > > proposals to the experimental cmavo list: > > > > A. > > nau'u CAhE "in This World is" > > > > B. > > ca'ai CAhA "in This World is" > > ka'ei CAhA "in some world is" [= su'o mu'ei] > > nu'oi CAhA "in some world but not This World is" [= na'e > nau'u ~ nau'u nai] > > ..i pe'i 2da smuni klesi .i le fatci ne zo da'inai fa'u le xanri ne zo > da'i "le fatci ku ne lu da'inai li'u ge'u fa'u le xanri ne zo da'i"? > .i pe'i na smuni le klesi poi za'u2moi "it is not a meaning of a class that is more than second"??? --Sorry -- I promise I've done my best to try to understand what you were trying to say. --And.