From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jun 21 19:52:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 22 Jun 2001 02:52:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 77555 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2001 02:52:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2001 02:52:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2001 02:52:44 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.7e.16bdbc03 (17385) for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:52:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7e.16bdbc03.28640cf5@aol.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:52:37 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: possible worlds To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7e.16bdbc03.28640cf5_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_7e.16bdbc03.28640cf5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/21/2001 7:42:56 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > I suppose you're right. So now we're back where we were, because the > "possible > worlds" cmavo can't be a UI - it doesn't have enough grammatical structure > that > way. > > It may have to be a xVV cmavo. (It feels icky to use xVV cmavo when there > are > empty cmavo like {bi'a} and {ci'a} at our disposal, but oh well.) If so, I > would suggest that it should be a tense. > Oh, the grammar is not all that bad. We need, however, to decide what the critter is to do. As I have said, I think the "possible worlds" talk -- outside of technical logic -- is a pretty bad one, since it goes so far toward reducing all speech acts to describing/asserting. In that view, though, making moves to other worlds would be rather like a tense, except that the world would be described situationally only, never by displacement (what would be the metric of displacement after all -- or even the direction?) I think that the UIs work rather better: they describe the displacement and permit laying stress when that is useful (it's the change in my economic status, not a change in me that is important in {mi ricfu da'i}, say). Which of these words we will use ({da'i}, {va'o} in a different way, probably some others) and how they correlate with various brivla (I think {sruma} goes nicely with {da'i} despite the different sources), is going to depend upon what we find when we really start looking at the various kinds of acts that may be out there: telling a tale is different from doing a proof and that from contingency plannig or speculation about character or... . We need to find out what our resources are as well (what words can reasonably play a role here?) As for your sentence, I think all you really needed to say was {ledo logji cmavo poi roroi mapti zoi na da'inai roroi mapti zoi } "What you call the logical connective that always matches "if, then" does not in fact always match "if, then":" the putative conditional doesn't work". Otherwise, I'd stick {se sruma} in. --part1_7e.16bdbc03.28640cf5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/21/2001 7:42:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes:

I suppose you're right. So now we're back where we were, because the
"possible
worlds" cmavo can't be a UI - it doesn't have enough grammatical structure
that
way.

It may have to be a xVV cmavo. (It feels icky to use xVV cmavo when there
are
empty cmavo like {bi'a} and {ci'a} at our disposal, but oh well.) If so, I
would suggest that it should be a tense.

Oh, the grammar is not all that bad. We need, however, to decide what the
critter is to do. As I have said, I think the "possible worlds" talk --
outside of technical logic -- is a pretty bad one, since it goes so far
toward reducing all speech acts to describing/asserting. In that view,
though, making moves to other worlds would be rather like a tense, except
that the world would be described situationally only, never by displacement
(what would be the metric of displacement after all -- or even the
direction?) I think that the UIs work rather better: they describe the
displacement and permit laying stress when that is useful (it's the change in
my economic status, not a change in me that is important in {mi ricfu da'i},
say). Which of these words we will use ({da'i}, {va'o} in a different way,
probably some others) and how they correlate with various brivla (I think
{sruma} goes nicely with {da'i} despite the different sources), is going to
depend upon what we find when we really start looking at the various kinds of
acts that may be out there: telling a tale is different from doing a proof
and that from contingency plannig or speculation about character or... . We
need to find out what our resources are as well (what words can reasonably
play a role here?)
As for your sentence, I think all you really needed to say was {ledo logji
cmavo poi roroi mapti zoi <if, then> na da'inai roroi mapti zoi <if, then>}
"What you call the logical connective that always matches "if, then" does not
in fact always match "if, then":" the putative conditional doesn't work".
Otherwise, I'd stick {se sruma} in. --part1_7e.16bdbc03.28640cf5_boundary--