WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita

posts: 2388


> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), John
> E Clifford wrote:
> > To summarize and old point about sumtcita:
> the
> > connection between a sumtcita and some brivla
> > mentioned in connection with it is heuristic,
> not
> > definitional. That is, the sumtcita may have
> a
> > meaning that is not exactly to be found in
> the
> > brivla and conversely.
>
> I think CLL treats it as definitional.

Well, we disagree on that point and I cite the
several cases of sumtcita that cannot be strictly
related to the associated predicate but that pick
up on some idea in that predicate's neighborhood
semantically or even pragmatically.

> > Further, even insofar as
> > the sumtcita and the brivla are directly
> related,
> > the sumtcita brings into a sentence the
> semantics
> > of only the one place indicated, not the
> whole
> > semantics of the brivla.
>
> This assumes that places have semantics
> independent
> of the brivla. I take lojban brivla to be
> relationships, not
> collections of several concepts in one word. I
> think that's
> the spirit of the language, even though many
> gismu
> place structures do look like collections of
> related
> concepts instead of one relationship between a
> number
> of arguments.

Yes, so I was a bit unclear there. What I mean
is that only the cited place plays a role in the
event, the other places are at most implicit --
and not in any systematic way even. Consider
even {du'o} which is the most generous case I can
think of outside the causals. It does appear
that your pattern works here, sort of: the sumti
is the person who know and what he knows is the
main predication. But that is not quite what the
original says; the original is using {djuno} as a
stand in for {certu}, though with a proposition
(the main bridi) standing in for a generalized
event description, combined with {xusra} to give
the more specific proposition. Notice, for
example, that we do not take the {du'o x} away if
the proposition happens to be false (indeed, one
major use for this sort of thing is to put forth
somewhat suspect stuff) quite differently from
{djuno}. As far as I can see {x djuno lo du'u y
broda} is not even implied by {y broda du'o x}
and the same seems to be the case with many such
transformations.

> Thus:
> > 1) looking for a transformational equivalent
> of a
> > sentence with a sumtcita which has the
> indicated
> > brivla as selbri is never decisive for
> themeaning
> > of the sumtcita'd sentence, though it is
> often at
> > leat helpful in figuring it out.
>
> I don't have a problem with that.


Oh, I have been reading you as saying that the
transformation — if once we could figure out
what it is — *is* the meaning of the sentence.

> > 2) the fact that a brivla has a place does
> not
> > mean that that place is usefully to be added
> to
> > sentences, so looking for all the possible
> > variations on a sumtcita to match the place
> of
> > the associated brivla is often useless work;
> wait
> > until the form is used and then figure out
> what
> > it means — don't borrow trouble.
>
> All variations will appear on the dictionary,
> so we want
> examples for all, even if they are unlikely to
> end up being
> used.

And what I am saying is that we should not put in
these oblique forms unless they have some usage.
And in particular, we should not prejudge what
their uses might be on the basis of some abstract
rule which ignores the rather considerable role
of human ingenuity that still creeps into Lojban.