[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 02:35:39PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 May 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 04:43:05PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > xod:
> > > [...]
> > > > > In Lojban, events can "exist" without them ever having to have occurred
> > > > > (yet).
> > > >
> > > > As discussed 6 months ago, I think this is an odious & egregious
> > > > inconsistency in Lojban. However, if I pretend you were talking
> > > > about du'u rather than nu, then we can let this issue go unrediscussed
> > > > for the time being.
> > >
> > > I don't remember the discussion 6 months ago. But I agree with
> > > And. The events-always-exist thing is a dumb hack, because we don't
> > > have sufficient gadri to properly support certain types of predicates
> > > (djica, nitcu).
> >
> > Well, I'm only quoting chapter and verse concerning the existence of
> > events. But I don't see how it could be any other way, if you want to be
> > able to speak about hypothetical and future events. And we do have da'i to
> > make the differentiation, which is usually understood anyway.
>
> No, you're quoting Cowan.
>
> I doesn't say that events always exist anywhere in CLL.
>
> > If we aren't allowed to discuss imaginary events, how can we write any
> > fiction stories? Even a scientific paper would be impossible. So would
> > computer source code -- here you are discussing operations on data
> > structures that don't yet exist in memory at the time when the source is
> > being written.
>
> Using other gadri than ones which demand existence, of course...
What does lo da'i broda mean to you?
> > > > > So it is definitely a leftover spoon if it's intended to be used in
> > > > > case there are any leftovers, regardless of there being any leftovers
> > > > > right now. However, in "need a doctor", the Doctor isn't wrapped in a NU
> > > > > clause, and worse yet, might be tagged with an o-gadri
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, but x2 of knife/spoon/taxi isn't wrapped in a nu clause either.
> > > > That's really the essence of the problem.
> > > >
> > > > Remembering back to 6 months ago, we found two solutions. One
> > > > ('propositionalism') was to change the place structure so that x2
> > > > is an abstraction. The other was to introduce a new Kind gadri.
> > >
> > > Propositionalism doesn't really completely fix the problem; it's
> > > just a workaround.
> > >
> > > mi nitcu tu'a lo nu mi klama le zarci
> > > Is supposed to be
> > > mi nitcu LE<something> da nu mi klama le zarci
> > >
> > > But we have no LE which can go there, and no NU for the something
> > > (except su'u, kinda).
> >
> > What was the problem?
> >
> > "nitcu" might refer to the 'shape of the receptor'. It might be phrased
> > "something that I refer to as an 'X' would satisfy me", not really making
> > any requirement that any X actually exists.
>
> But it can't be up to nitcu because of the way terms work.
>
> If I have <term> <term> selbri <term> <term>, the way a term is
> interpreted cannot depend on the selbri. If one of the terms is
> "lenu mi klama le zarci", it means the known (and real) event of
> me going to the store, no matter what the selbri is.
Where does it say that sumti are completely context-resistant?
If UI can affect the truth value of a statement, I think brivla would be
able to as well.
In any case, it seems that "nitcu le da'icu'i broda" should satisfy the
sticklers. Like krici referring to the mental state of the lo krici, nitcu
should likewise refer to the state of the lo nitcu, and not be interpreted
to make any claims about the lo selnitcu.
--
.o'i mu xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi
[Caution!] There are five hungry Soviet cows in the garden!