[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 05:52:07PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> 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.
In one sense, perhaps. In another sense it doesn't, since I want
to have a language that is both stable and more formal than natural
languages. Failing on either count fails the whole thing.
Speaking of which, it's quite weird that in the lojban community
those of us who are interested in things like the language having
a formal grammar get labeled as conservative, whereas those who
want the language to be more like natural languages are considered
progressive...
[...]
> > > 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.
No, it does assert the existence of the da. The UI only changes
the speakers attitude about the assertion.
For example, in
{ledu'u do citka da cu jitfa}
the "da" is still asserting the existence of something. But the
speaker's attitude toward the claim is that it is false.
> > > 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.
That's the theory...
Yet for some reason the SWist position finds itself on the natlang
side of basically every debate... (including this one).
> > 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.
Chapter 16 commits to it. It is a baseline change to change it.
(Although I think the way it is worded in chapter 16 is consistent
with a view that "PA1 lo PA2 broda" is equivalent to "PA1 da poi
cmima lo'i PA2 broda"; if the inner PA is left out, that's the same
as "PA1 da poi broda").
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binyHW6sr75cd.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped