WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita changed

posts: 2388

While I don't suppose there is any good
systematic way to say what can occupy a place in
a predicate there does seem to be a general
notion that sumti in places stand for components
of event being described. Some sumtcita
expressions seem not to meet this condition:
while the cause of a event may be seen as a
component of the event, who knows about it or who
has described it does not. These seem rather to
adverbial to the main bridi, adjectival to one of
the other places, or to suggest that the surface
structure of the claim is inside out the logical
claim (the brivla of the added place is the main
brivla and the apparent main clause is shoved
into some subordinate role). The epistemological
sumtcita seem particularly to fall into this
category , so that I wonder whether incorporating
the "added place" locution is really all that
informative. Perhaps just saying that they add
information to the basic claim and then selling
out the nature of that information in each case
would be more elegant (and accurate).


<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> Trimming would have been nice.
>
> I happen to be working on the examples right
> now.
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 04:31:04PM -0800, John
> E Clifford wrote:
> >
> > > ;du'o (BAI): According to... Tags a
> sumti
> snip
> > > se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o.
> > > ** Keywords: According to, known by.
> >
> > Since {djuno}, like English "know," intails
> that
> > what is known is true, the reading "according
> to"
> > is misleading, since it has no such
> implication
> > and often (with a certain tone of voice to be
> > sure) implicates that the information is
> false or
> > at best unknown. And, once it is established
> --
> > as anybody knowing it would do — the knower
> is
> > not important, the truth is established. I
> > suppose that what is intended is something
> "is
> > vouched for by" citing the presumed reliable
> > source of the information.
>
> Actually, I'm using it for exactly what I said:
>
> .oi sai mi cliva du'o la patfu
> Dad knew I left!

Note the apparent inversion in the translation.
Is this basically a claim about what Dad knew?
Is it a joint claim "I left and Dad knew it"? The
firsst may just be a problem like of ecxpressing
many attitudinals in Emnglish in a way that does
not look like a description of my attitude rather
than an expression of it. The second is an
attempt to get away from that, but now introduces
two points of truth evaluation rather than one,
as the original would suggest if the sumtcita
introduces just another place. Ultimately, how we
describe these critters may not actually matter,
but some seem to be clearer and more usable.

>
> > > ;se du'o (BAI*): Knowing facts...
> Tags a
> snip
> > > ** Keywords: Knowing facts, given the fact
> > > that.
> >
> > I'm dying to see example of usage; what sort
> of
> > association can be introduced in this way?
> > Evidence maybe?
>
> ''ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu
> zvati zy''
> "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is
> there.''

Here the phrase seems to be adjectival to {ma'a},
though it could be argued that the state of mind
of the agent is a factor in the situation itself
-- unlike who knows about the situation. Notice
that the inversion does not work here, the main
clause does not fit sensibly into any place of
{djuno}, though the first argument does.

>
> > > ;te du'o (BAI*): Knowing about...
> Tags a
> > > ** Keywords: Knowing about.
> >
> > Ditto in spades.
>
> mi ka'e sidju te du'o lo mikse saske
> "I can help, knowing about medicine."

Same comment as for the previous one. Here a
causal reading seems to be implied.

>
> > > ;se zau (BAI*): Approving... Tags a
> sumti
> snip
> > > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates
> that
> > > the event described by the bridi is
> associated
> > > with approval of the referent of the tagged
> > > sumti. See also: zanru, zau.
> > > ** Keywords: Approving, with approval of.
> >
> > "the approval of the referent" is ambiguous
> in a
> > dangerous way: it means "that the referent is
> > approved," not "the referent approves" (i.e.,
> > {zau}).
>
> You are *quite* correct. I noticed this when
> doing examples.
>
> How's this:
>
> In other words, the tagged sumti indicates
> that the event
> described by the bridi is associated with
> the someone's or
> something's approval of that which is
> described or indicated by
> the referent of the tagged sumti.

Yes, though this is a little obscure: "We left,
our passport having been approved" or some such.
If so, we get causal notions or the like again.

> > > ;cu'u (BaI): As said by... Tags a
> sumti
> snip
> > > ** Keywords: As said by, said.
> >
> > This is closer to "according to" in English.
> cf
> > Bertl Isaacs.
>
> Sort of. cu'u indicates that the person
> actually *expressed*
> somehting.
>
Just so — that is what "according to" says or at
the least implicates.

> Anyways, I've made "known by" the default for
> "du'o".

Good

> > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr.
> rubnstain.
> > > cu se nelci mi
> > > ''"The Appassionata", played by Arthur
> > > Rubenstein, is liked by me.''
>
> This was, for the record, straight out of the
> CLL.

No surprise there — this is why BPFK exists: to
reconcile the various things that CLL says and
that on examination do not cohere.

> > {cusku} seems to deal with conceptual and
> > propositional expressions, not performances
> per
> > se.
>
> Erm, no. cusku takes a se du'u, text, or lu'e.
> All of these are
> actual expressions, not concepts. If it was
> conceptual, it would be
> du'u, not se du'u.

Yes, {cusku2} is text in some form. {cusku3} is
ideational, however — certainly none of them is
a performance.

> > Which does raise the question, "if the tagged
> > item occupies the nth place of the underlying
> > predicate, what place does the sentence to
> which
> > it is attached occupy?"
>
> A newly created, un-numbered place with the
> semantics of the nth
> place of the predicate underlying the BAI tag.

"nth" as in "whatever place fits, if any"
Several examples simply do not fit the sentence
into any place in the underlying predicate and
the new place seems to be pretty much ad lib --
outside any rules other than "what makes sense to
me now.

> I should probably say that in my definitions.
>
> > > ;se cu'u (BAI*): Expressing... Tags a
> snip
> > > ** Keywords: Expressing, saying.
> > >
> > > !! Examples of se cu'u Usage
> >
> > This "associated with" is getting murkier and
> > murkier. Can it be spelled out for each
> item?
>
> If I had some idea how to do it, I suppose.
> But most of these have
> seen no usage whatsoever, and their *meaning*
> is murky.
>
> > Is there a rule that covers all these
> specifica
> > cases as deriving from the basic locution?
>
> What?
>
> > > se'o verba selsanga secu'u le du'u lo za'i
> > > jmive cu selsenva po'o
> > > ''I know culturally that children's songs
> > > express that life is only a dream.''
> >
> > Sentence is first place when tagged is
> second.
>
> What?
"Sentence" is wrong here, there isn't one.
{verba selsanga} occupies the first place of
{cusku} because (?) {le du'u...po'o} occupies the
second (as flagged). Looking for a pattern here,
but not finding it.


> > Reasonable but... . Why is this an extra
> place on
> > {selsanga} rather than directly expressed:
> {lo
> > verba selsanga cu cusku le du'u le za'i jmive
> cu
> > selsenvi}?
>
> You'd have to ask the original author of the
> sentence; it's from
> IRC.

Putting this out to all and sundry is meant to
get input from anyone who lnows anything about
it. Hopefully including the author.