From pycyn@aol.com Sun Dec 10 07:16:24 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 10 Dec 2000 15:16:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 47907 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2000 15:16:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2000 15:16:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Dec 2000 15:16:23 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.61.99b684d (18252) for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:16:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <61.99b684d.2764f83f@aol.com> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:16:15 EST Subject: Re: Bringing it about that To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_61.99b684d.2764f83f_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_61.99b684d.2764f83f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 12/9/2000 5:15:23 PM Central Standard Time,=20 graywyvern@hotmail.com writes: > < as a separate issue derives from NU LOGJI TERPA that > is more GLIJBO than LOBYKAI... how often does this > create a misunderstanding that isn't readily guessable > from context?>> >=20 True, it may be a rare case that causes trouble, but as a part of the Lojba= n=20 commitment (sometimes disappearingly small) to being a *logical* language, = it=20 is essential -- and scarcely an Anglicism, since English is notoriously bad= =20 at doing this sort of thing. =A0The problem in simplest terms is that unfla= gged=20 raised subjects can be quantified over and thus held to exist when they do= =20 not (or, more accurately, where they do not, i.e., in the real world rather= =20 than only in the intensional ones). =A0This also misconstrues cases that sh= ould=20 be clear: moving from "I am hunting a unicorn" to "There is a (particular)= =20 unicorn I am hunting." =A0Subject raising is needed then, at least as a=20 corrective: "No, no, I meant to say I am hunting tu'a a unicorn" --part1_61.99b684d.2764f83f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 12/9/2000 5:15:23 PM Central Standard Time,
graywy= vern@hotmail.com writes:



<<it seems to me th= at "sumti-raising"
as a separate issue derives from NU LOGJI TERPA that
is more GLIJBO than LOBYKAI... how often does this
create a misunderstanding that isn't readily guessable
from context?>>




True, it may be a rare case that causes trouble, but as a part of the L= ojban
commitment (sometimes disappearingly small) to being a *logical* = language, it
is essential -- and scarcely an Anglicism, since English i= s notoriously bad
at doing this sort of thing. =A0The problem in simple= st terms is that unflagged
raised subjects can be quantified over and t= hus held to exist when they do
not (or, more accurately, where they do = not, i.e., in the real world rather
than only in the intensional ones).= =A0This also misconstrues cases that should
be clear: moving from "I a= m hunting a unicorn" to "There is a (particular)
unicorn I am hunting."= =A0Subject raising is needed then, at least as a
corrective: "No, no, = I meant to say I am hunting tu'a a unicorn" --part1_61.99b684d.2764f83f_boundary--