Assertions of time-relations and precision of abstractions Posted by namor on Mon 16 of Jun, 2008 06:01 GMT posts: 42 Use this thread to discuss the Assertions of time-relations and precision of abstractions page.
Posted by namor on Mon 16 of Jun, 2008 06:01 GMT posts: 42 .coi rodo We've had a long discussion on this on IRC, but in the end I got the impression we were all more or less confused: 1.) Does {lo nu lo cevni cu zbasu lo munji kei fasnu} assert {lo cevni cu zbasu lo munji} to be true? Or does the abstraction loose precision (in whatever way)?. (We had the point that {lo nu lo cevni cu zbasu lo munji kei} could also refer to the big-bang due to it's abstract nature (while {lo cevni cu zbasu lo munji} can't due to it's less abstract nature); does the abstraction really loose precision?) 2.) Which of the following is asserted by {.i broda ba lo nu brode}? A.) {.i broda} B.) {.i brode} C.) {.i lo nu broda cu balvi lo nu brode} Just the order! Without implications of A and B! We had the example of: {.i mi citka lo plise ba lo nu mi citka lo badna} Where the question was, if {.i mi citka lo badna} was implicitly stated, since the whole bridi wouldn't make sense if it wasn't. (i.e. It wouldn't make sense to state "I eat one or more apples after my eating one or more banana(s)", if "my eating one or more banana(s)" never occurred and never will) ki'e mi'e nam
Posted by namor on Mon 16 of Jun, 2008 06:01 GMT posts: 42 Am Montag 26 Mai 2008 18:17:55 schrieb Michael Turniansky: > What if it had instead asserted "I eat apples after Hell freezes > over/after pigs fly"? The whole sentence is still valid, and may even > be true, but that doesn't mean you've eaten any apples at all, yet. > We will have to wait and see.... Remember, the main bridi had no > tense associated with it, so it's simply asserting a fact, not > necessarily one that has come to fruition yet. So, would it be valid so sum up: If {.i broda ba lo nu brode} is given, {broda} happens iff {brode} happens? -- regards, Nam To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Jun, 2008 06:01 GMT On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:29 AM, nam <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote: > Am Dienstag 27 Mai 2008 14:31:36 schrieb nam: > >> So, would it be valid so sum up: If {.i broda ba lo nu brode} is given, >> {broda} happens iff {brode} happens? > > Sry, that's plain wrong. Don't konw what I was thinking about.. > > What I wanted to ask is: Would it be fine to say: > > Given: {.i broda ba lo nu brode} > Then: {.i broda .inaja brode} > (This doesn't deny 'when hell frezes' brode, because if NOT brode then NOT > broda) => (If hell never freezes, I'll never eat the banana or whatever) > -- I think that that's fine to say as long as we understand we are talking about a _particular_ (le) event/events. To say "I (will) shop after this TV show is over" does not imply that I've never shopped before (unless we add a "po'o"/"only" to it, or similar device (pare'u, etc.)). --gejyspa To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Jun, 2008 06:01 GMT Am Dienstag 27 Mai 2008 14:31:36 schrieb nam: > So, would it be valid so sum up: If {.i broda ba lo nu brode} is given, > {broda} happens iff {brode} happens? (I did not receive this email from the mailserver and thus assume it hasn't been sent the first time due to an error) Sry, that's plain wrong. Don't konw what I was thinking about.. What I wanted to ask is: Would it be fine to say: Given: {.i broda ba lo nu brode} Then: {.i broda .inaja brode} (This doesn't deny 'when hell frezes' brode, because if NOT brode then NOT broda) => (If hell never freezes, I'll never eat the banana or whatever) To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Jun, 2008 06:01 GMT Am Dienstag 27 Mai 2008 16:47:18 schrieb Michael Turniansky: > > Given: {.i broda ba lo nu brode} > > Then: {.i broda .inaja brode} > I think that that's fine to say as long as we understand we are > talking about a _particular_ (le) event/events. To say "I (will) shop > after this TV show is over" does not imply that I've never shopped > before (unless we add a "po'o"/"only" to it, or similar device > (pare'u, etc.)). I agree mostly; in the beginning, I was thinking about claiming {.i le nu broda cu fasnu .inaja le nu brode cu fasnu}, but that would limit the claim to particular _events_, although particular states and other abstractions would be fine as well. So the claim should go for anything _particular_ (le), not only particular events. Thanks for the explanation, I think I (maybe as good as) fully understand the implicit claims of temporally related clauses now, - or can figure them out given some time. (for the other cmavo of selma'o pu) -- mu'o mi'e nam To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Jun, 2008 06:02 GMT On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:31 AM, nam <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote: > Am Montag 26 Mai 2008 18:17:55 schrieb Michael Turniansky: >> What if it had instead asserted "I eat apples after Hell freezes >> over/after pigs fly"? The whole sentence is still valid, and may even >> be true, but that doesn't mean you've eaten any apples at all, yet. >> We will have to wait and see.... Remember, the main bridi had no >> tense associated with it, so it's simply asserting a fact, not >> necessarily one that has come to fruition yet. > > So, would it be valid so sum up: If {.i broda ba lo nu brode} is given, > {broda} happens iff {brode} happens? > Well, no, some instance of broda might happen regardless whether or not brode happens. But at least one instance does happen some time after brode happens. Of course, if we are currently situated in time between those two incidents, broda hasn't happened yet. (For example, a 12-year-old who says, "I am eligible to vote in a national election after being learning my ABC's" is certainly making a true statement, and "brode" has occurred, but "broda" hasn't yet.) Bottom line, that's why context is still important in lojban as in any natural language. Yes, we CAN add enough cmavo, qualifying clauses, etc. to remove almost all ambiguity, but ultimately, there are still some baseline assumptions to be made, and in most cases the "natural" meaning would in fact be the intended one, so we can still speak simply. --gejyspa To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by namor on Mon 16 of Jun, 2008 06:02 GMT posts: 42 Am Dienstag 27 Mai 2008 14:31:36 schrieb nam: > So, would it be valid so sum up: If {.i broda ba lo nu brode} is given, > {broda} happens iff {brode} happens? Sry, that's plain wrong. Don't konw what I was thinking about.. What I wanted to ask is: Would it be fine to say: Given: {.i broda ba lo nu brode} Then: Â {.i broda .inaja brode} (This doesn't deny 'when hell frezes' brode, because if NOT brode then NOT broda) => (If hell never freezes, I'll never eat the banana or whatever) -- mu'o mi'e nam To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Jun, 2008 06:03 GMT On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:45 PM, nam <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote: > 1.) > Does {lo nu lo cevni cu zbasu lo munji kei fasnu} assert {lo cevni cu zbasu lo > munji} to be true? You want {cu}, or {kei ku}, rather than {kei}. {nu .... kei} is a tanru unit, {kei} does not terminate a sumti. As for the question (assuming {cu}), it asserts that {lo nu lo cevni cu zbasu lo munji} is an event, i.e. the kind of thing that happens. It will depend on the context whether or not you are claiming that it actually did/does/will happen. You can say {ca'a fasnu} to ensure a claim of it actually happening. > Or does the abstraction loose precision (in whatever way)?. Subordinate clauses in general are not claimed to happen, unless of course the claim happens to be that they actually happen, as with {ca'a fasnu}. Even a main clause need not always be used to make an assertion, although that will be the default understanding. > (We had the point that {lo nu lo cevni cu zbasu lo munji kei} could also refer > to the big-bang due to it's abstract nature (while {lo cevni cu zbasu lo > munji} can't due to it's less abstract nature); does the abstraction really > loose precision?) I don't think that makes much sense. > 2.) > Which of the following is asserted by {.i broda ba lo nu brode}? > A.) {.i broda} > B.) {.i brode} > C.) {.i lo nu broda cu balvi lo nu brode} Just the order! Without > implications of A and B! (A) is asserted. An event of brodeing is referred to as a refernce point, so it is presupposed that it happens, which is not quite the same thing as making an assertion. > We had the example of: {.i mi citka lo plise ba lo nu mi citka lo badna} > Where the question was, if {.i mi citka lo badna} was implicitly stated, since > the whole bridi wouldn't make sense if it wasn't. > > (i.e. It wouldn't make sense to state "I eat one or more apples after my > eating one or more banana(s)", if "my eating one or more banana(s)" never > occurred and never will) That a subordinate clause is not asserted does not of course mean that it is asserted not to hold. {mi (ca'a) citka lo plise ba ko'a} asserts that I did/do/will eat apples after ko'a, and the only way for that to be true is that "ko'a" refers to some event that actually happens, just as it requires "mi" to refer to an actual person, and "lo plise" to refer to actual apples. Given an appropriate context, {mi citka lo plise ba lo nu mi citka lo badna} could mean "I could eat apples after eating bananas", which does not require any eating to actually take place for it to be true. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Jun, 2008 06:03 GMT On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:45 PM, nam <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We had the example of: {.i mi citka lo plise ba lo nu mi citka lo badna} >> Where the question was, if {.i mi citka lo badna} was implicitly stated, since >> the whole bridi wouldn't make sense if it wasn't. >> >> (i.e. It wouldn't make sense to state "I eat one or more apples after my >> eating one or more banana(s)", if "my eating one or more banana(s)" never >> occurred and never will) > What if it had instead asserted "I eat apples after Hell freezes over/after pigs fly"? The whole sentence is still valid, and may even be true, but that doesn't mean you've eaten any apples at all, yet. We will have to wait and see.... Remember, the main bridi had no tense associated with it, so it's simply asserting a fact, not necessarily one that has come to fruition yet. --gejyspa To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
