From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Dec 01 09:14:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 1 Dec 2002 17:14:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 73229 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2002 17:07:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2002 17:07:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2002 17:07:47 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IXZL-0006nM-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 09:07:47 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IXZF-0006n4-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 09:07:41 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 09:07:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IXZ7-0006mv-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 09:07:33 -0800 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 gB1HDEG9026093 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 11:13:14 -0600 (CST) (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 gB1HDEoF026092 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 11:13:14 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 11:13:14 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Specific example of Sapir-Whorf in English OR How Lojban made me think more clearly Message-ID: <20021201171313.GA25407@allusion.net> References: <0H6F005ENYXC6S@mxout3.netvision.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0H6F005ENYXC6S@mxout3.netvision.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 2810 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 --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB" Content-Disposition: inline --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 03:04:48PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > de'i li 2002-11-30 ti'u li 10:33:00 la'o zoi. Avital Oliver .zoi cusku di= 'e Hey---shouldn't that be 30:11:2002 (or even better, but I doubt i'll convince you of this: cino pi'e papa pi'e renonore; but it's definitely unfortunate to use different symbols for pi'e on de'i and ti'u). [...] > >The sentence "Homosexuals aren't supposed to > You could say "ma minde fi lo'e nu naku lo nanmu cu gletu lo nanmu", > but you might get the response "no da minde .i javni ma'i le ka rarna". > (I'm not sure what the difference is between the first and second place > of javni; if anyone has any ideas, it should probably go into the > bpfk's work.) I don't think that you'll be able to refute many > arguments in political debates just by translating them into Lojban, > but you may be able to reach each side's assumptions faster. x1 of javni is like x1 of minde, and x2 is like x2 of minde. I think Nick said that the BFPK will not be looking at gismu, but because javni has a modal it will probably be addressed. [...] > Actually, I think that what we're trying to express here is deontic > modality, so you could say "nomu'eiku lo nanmu cu gletu lo nanmu", > understanding no to be quantifying over worlds where the rule is > followed. If we had a way to explicitly note that mu'ei is deontic, > we might also be able to note which rule or rule system is used. How about doing that with marde? mu'ei could do it, but I hope that if mu'ei becomes official it either (a) gets moved to MOI or something so it can allow specifying the type of modality, or (b) it gets pinned down to epistemological modality in all circumstances. The problem with (a) is that we lose the ability to do forethought with it, and to use it in sumti tcita. Instead it would always have to be at the main brivla (or just in front of it). So I'd probably prefer (b), perhaps with the use of other mu'ei-like cmavo for different concepts of necessity (perhaps ma'ei for moral necessity?). --=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 --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: lojban translation Content-Language: art-lojban Content-Disposition: inline; filename=lojban_mime_part Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 03:04:48PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > de'i li 2002-11-30 ti'u li 10:33:00 la'o zoi. Avital Oliver .zoi cusku di= 'e .uanai .i mu'i ma na cusku lo'u 30:11:2002 le'u to xamgymau toku'i senpi ledu'u mi ba tugnygau do toi fa lu li cino pi'e papa pi'e renonore li'u .i xlali fa lenu pilno ba'e za'u sinxa be zo pi'e be'o pe zo de'i .e zo ti'u toi [...] > >The sentence "Homosexuals aren't supposed to > You could say "ma minde fi lo'e nu naku lo nanmu cu gletu lo nanmu", > but you might get the response "no da minde .i javni ma'i le ka rarna". > (I'm not sure what the difference is between the first and second place > of javni; if anyone has any ideas, it should probably go into the > bpfk's work.) I don't think that you'll be able to refute many > arguments in political debates just by translating them into Lojban, > but you may be able to reach each side's assumptions faster. .i le pamoi be le'i se sumti be zo javni cu simsa le pamoi be le'i se sumti pe zo minde .i si'a le remoi cu simsa le remoi .i mi ju'oru'e jinvi ledu'u la nitcon. pu xusra ledu'u la byfypykyb. to'e co'e loi gismu .iku'i ru'a mu'i leza'i zo javni jai sabji le cmalymau ke sumtcita cmavo no'u zo ja'i kei cumki nu co'e [...] > Actually, I think that what we're trying to express here is deontic > modality, so you could say "nomu'eiku lo nanmu cu gletu lo nanmu", > understanding no to be quantifying over worlds where the rule is > followed. If we had a way to explicitly note that mu'ei is deontic, > we might also be able to note which rule or rule system is used. .i .e'u zo marde banzu .i zo mu'ei ka'e banzu .iku'i ro mu'ei ki gi zo mu'ei catni binxo gi .a'o ri ga pamai binxo lo cmavo be la'e zo moi ki'u lenu sarji za'u te sumti gi remai jai se xusra fai ledu'u selsmi la'o zo. epistemological modality .zo. po'o .i nabmi mi le pamoi fa lonu cirko leka ka'e pilno vi loi sumtcita .e la'o zo. forethought .zo. .ibo nitcu lenu roroi pilno vi le selbri .i kiku mi milxe nelcu'a le remai .i .e'uru'e loi cnino cmavo poi simsa zo mu'ei gi'e selsmi loi drata si'o sarcu cu cumki sidju to .e'u zo ma'ei selsmi lesi'o marde sarcu toi mu'o --=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 --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB-- --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE96kMpDrrilS51AZ8RAtOCAJ9tlU0Z4v6kVA8Pi3zVyWe/N51zdQCfeIfS liHVBruzZm6pNy67WDz46Xw= =ln24 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5--