From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Dec 01 14:43:47 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 22:43:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 22612 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2002 22:43:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2002 22:43:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2002 22:43:46 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IcoU-0008DY-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:43:46 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IcoO-0008DH-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:43:40 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:43:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IcoG-0008D8-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:43:33 -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 gB1MnIG9028901 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 16:49:19 -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 gB1MnIdf028900 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 16:49:18 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 16:49:18 -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: <20021201224918.GA28512@allusion.net> References: <20021201171313.GA25407@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 2824 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 --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="opJtzjQTFsWo+cga" Content-Disposition: inline --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 10:15:28PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > Jordan: > > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 03:04:48PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > > > 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=20 > [...] > > 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=20 > >=20 > > 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 >=20 > I would tend to use {bilga} for deontic modality. For the reasons > you cite, mu'ei is better in ROI, but I guess there is a case for > a counterpart in MOI which would allow for different sorts of > modality to be expressed, either by a sumti or by a tanru formation. > If there is resistance to adding extra cmavo, I guess one could > use a lujvo, so that PA+MOI > lujvo li PA. Good idea. How about sibysa'u, as: In x1 (default=3Dli ro) of the worlds accessable under x2 (si'o), x3 (abstract) implies x3 (abstract) ... implies xn. This gives a general solution, I think, and we're here just talking about {sibysa'u lesi'o marde}. Then if la byfyb. wants they can pin mu'ei down to epistemological necessity or such. ka'e is apparently a kind of 'dynamic modality', and I'd imagine it goes into x2 as lesi'o kakne with x1 as li su'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 --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga 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 10:15:28PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > Jordan: > > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 03:04:48PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > > > 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=20 > [...] > > 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=20 > >=20 > > 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 >=20 > I would tend to use {bilga} for deontic modality. For the reasons > you cite, mu'ei is better in ROI, but I guess there is a case for > a counterpart in MOI which would allow for different sorts of > modality to be expressed, either by a sumti or by a tanru formation. > If there is resistance to adding extra cmavo, I guess one could > use a lujvo, so that PA+MOI > lujvo li PA. .i xamgu sidbo .i .e'u zo sibysa'u banzu .i ca'e lu va'o ro lu'a le'i sidbo munje noi ke'a zilkancu ko'a zi'e noi me zoi zo. accessable .zo. pe tai ko'e zo'u ko'i se jalge ko'o noi se jalge ko'u noi li'o se jalge ko'u xi ny. li'u .i tai bo danfu piro lei nabmi vau pe'i .ije vi le ra'i selsnu le si'o sibysa'u lesi'o marde cu srana .i tai bo la byfyb. ro mu'ei gi djica gi ka'e steci smuni xusra tu'a zo mu'ei .i zo ka'e srana la'o zo. dynamic modalitiy .zo. .ije mi pensi ledu'u zo sibysa'u kei zo ka'e zo'u lu li su'o lesi'o kakne cu sibysa'u li'o li'u 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 --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga-- --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE96pHuDrrilS51AZ8RAiyTAKCHEbsUsLmMG8zky24ERUa/b6B5BQCgyIZ5 BjkZQ2ymbpxcQHkYKSR6s38= =iAOQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz--