[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 02:58:08PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 May 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> >
> > What does lo da'i broda mean to you?
>
> That the speaker is feeling the effects of problems in the gadri
> system, and trying to hack around it.
This represents a departure from your customary ultra-conservatism.
> > > > "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?
>
> It doesn't say that they depend on the selbri, and certain gadri
> are given specific defitions which wouldn't make sense to try to
> tie to the selbri.
>
> > If UI can affect the truth value of a statement, I think brivla would be
> > able to as well.
>
> Well of course they affect the truth value. {mi remna} is a different
> truth value than {mi ca'o se citka lo barda tricu}.
>
> So... Maybe you misunderstand me?
Perhaps. Since UI can alter the truth value, then a UI can remove an
existence claim in a sentence. (For certain UI, "UI da broda"
does not assert existence of da.) Therefore, maybe a tergi'u can, too. In
fact, I vaguely recall being told this many years ago, possibly on this
very list, and I think from John.
> > 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.
>
> Well, that is how it works in english, so I can understand why you
> would favor it (I recognize that the "sapirworfists" or whatever
> you call yourselves do tend to be pretty natlang-centric and try
> to avoid doing things in unusual ways).
SW-ism should embrace aspects of Lojban that deviate from natlang methods.
> However, to fit with the definition of things like lo, that just
> doesn't make sense. {da poi cinri zo'u mi nitcu da} cannot be
> consistently taken to not imply existence of the da---that's the
> whole definition of da. So it extends to lo based on rules in
> chapter 16. Le follows just as a rational extension, since it
> describes something which exists (if you take le broda as da voi
> broda, for example).
Somehow I think John and Bob looked at "lo broda" and decided that it was
very much like "da poi broda", not necessarily committing themselves to
each and every logical consequence of the equation. They are free to
contradict me, of course. Or perhaps only the "da voi broda" reading is
problematic. It is radical to assert that le makes an existence claim.
--
.o'i mu xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi
[Caution!] There are five hungry Soviet cows in the garden!