Robin's gadri Proposal
I would like everyone to bear in mind that this discussion is
- explicitely* outside the scope of the BPFK gadri proposal, however it
turns out.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 04:02:52PM -0400, xod wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:51:16PM -0400, xod wrote:
> >>Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:31:20PM -0700, Eimi wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>That is, if a gadri has defaults for all the axes, then is it
> >>>>possible for glorking to decide that one really doesn't mean that,
> >>>>instead of explicitly mentioning it. (Example: If we're talking
> >>>>about mythology, do I have to use lo da'i pavyseljirna, or can I
> >>>>just say lo pavyseljirna without implying that I believe they
> >>>>actually exist).
> >>>>
> >>>If we're talking about mythology, I see no problem, although I
> >>>would expect a listener coming in in the middle to be quite
> >>>surpised at you talking about "da poi pavyseljirna", which is what
> >>>lo actually means.
> >>>
> >>I wouldn't. Anyone discussing unicorns is (necessarily) working in a
> >>context where they exist. Likewise with discussions of Sherlock
> >>Holmes and Napoleon Bonaparte.
> >>
> >
> >Anyone discussion unicorns using "lo pavyseljirna", yes, true. I
> >reserve the right, though, to be surprised by said discussion,
> >because I assume by default that discussions have the actual real
> >world as their context.
> >
>
> So if you come across people discussing Napoleon B., you reserve the
> right to interject "I'm surprised! He's been dead for years now."?
Depends on what they said. "la napoleon.bonapart cu vitke lo mi zdani"
would cause that response, yes.
> I think that your default assumption should be that their statements
> have meaning, and conclude that they are therefore (necessarily)
> operating in some context which permits meaning.
Sure, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to know what the context
- is*.
-Robin