Jorge Llambías, On 27/10/2012 17:50:
> In English we can say:
>
> (E1) I believe that the book is on the table.
> (E2) I see that the book is on the table.
> (E3) I believe and see that the book is on the table.
>
> In Lojban we can do (1) and (2), and we have a terribly weird way of doing (3):
>
> (L1) mi krici lo du'u lo cukta cu cpana lo jubme
> (L2) mi viska lo nu lo cukta cu cpana lo jubme
> (L3) mi lo du'u ja nu lo cukta cu cpana lo jubme cu krici gi'e viska
>
> In Xorban we can do all 3 normally as in English:
>
> (X1) la fa le ckte li jbmi cpneki krca'aka
> (X2) la fa le ckte li jbmi cpneki vska'aka
> (X3) la fa le ckte li jbmi cpneki je krca'aka vska'aka
>
> There doesn't seem to be any good reason to follow Lojban on this.
L2 is a poor rendition of E2. E2 means "know, from the evidence of vision", and would be better translated by "viska zei krici" with a "du'u" x2.
Compare
E1'. She believed him dead.
E2'. She saw him dead.
E3'. She believed and saw him dead.
E3' seems rather sylleptic to me.
Nevertheless, I agree that for Xorban f- suffices.
Oh, goodie, a new word. If it means what I think it means (and the temptation to see syphilitic in its background does play a role), it is a useful one. As I said, I think vsk is going to be an interesting word again. In this case, I note that it regularly takes both extensional objects -- tables and chairs -- and intensional object -- both propositions and sensations and maybe events -- as objects. You can, of course, divide it into two or more predicates, but I think that is less efficient and transparent than merely allowing it different sorts of objects.
E2' is tricky, since it has at least three rather
different readings, whivch, though related, have different logics (i.e., different translations into a formal system). E3' looks fine one reading, not so much on the other two.
--And.