From lojbab@lojban.org Sat Aug 04 21:30:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 04:30:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 30490 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 04:30:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 04:30:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 04:30:12 -0000 Received: from user.lojban.org (ppp37.net-A.cais.net [205.252.61.37]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f754UAX82671 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010805001519.00c297e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 00:28:30 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Well I guess you do learn something new every day... In-Reply-To: <9ki4tb+tfm2@eGroups.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010803112858.00d2be00@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 12:44 AM 8/5/01 +0000, Adam Raizen wrote: >I guess that means that "no'a" by default goes exactly one level up. >But even if "no'a" is useful to get to an arbitrary level in >between, "no'axiro" could still be the default. Since the keyword in the cmavo list specifies "next outer bridi", I don't think this would fly. > > > mi pensi le nu le nu no'a cu rinka le nu mi djuno > > > > > >Is it my thinking (likely) or being the cause (???) that makes me > > >know. > > > > The sentence claims that it is the "thinking about the thinking >about", > > that is the cause. > >I agree, but that contradicts that "no'a" refers to the bridi one >level up. And won't like this but ... no'a and nei being pragmatically defined (as are ri and ra) we have some ambiguity as to what "this" and "next outer" mean. Anaphora almost always are backwards referring, so that if the selbri of the next outer bridi hasn't occurred yet, I would not be inclined to count it. (If And wants unambiguous exact reference, he has to use goi and cei). > In "le nu no'a cu rinka le nu mi djuno", the bridi one >level up is the rinka-ing. So the one-level-up interpretation would >be that I'm thinking about causing my knowing causing my knowing. > > > > mi badri le nu do djuno le du'u no'a > > > > > >Does it mean that I'm sad that you know that I'm sad, or that you >know > > >that you know (that you know, etc.) > > > > It means that I'm sad about the fact that you know I'm sad (about >the fact > > that you know I'm sad ...) > >Again, exactly one level up from "no'a" in "do djuno le du'u no'a" is >the djuno-ing, so the sentence by that interpretation would be that >I'm sad about the fact that you know that you know that you know etc. Pragmatically, in a bare "mi djuno ledu'u nei" I would not consider the nei to be self representing, so the "current bridi" has to be "djuno", and no'a refers outward from djuno, as ra refers backwards from whatever ri is pragmatically determined to mean. >I really think that "no'a" would be more useful (and easier to think >about) referring to the main bridi. But it was specifically intended to handle the indeterminate number of middle cases where vo'a could not be used (hence the matching vowels). Only actual usage would tell us if reference frequency differs from the patterns we assumed in the design. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org