WikiDiscuss

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Aug, 2005 00:00 GMT posts: 2388

<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 10:33:55AM -0300, Jorge
> Llamb?as wrote:
> > On 6/12/05, Theodore Reed
> <treed@surreality.us> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 11:51 -0300, Jorge
> Llamb?as wrote:
> > > > ni'i ma do krici la'e di'u -> ma nibli lo
> du'u do krici la'e
> > > > di'u
> > > >
> > > > Not the same as: {do krici la'e di'u lu'u
> ne ni'i ma}
> > >
> > > I did in fact intend {ma nibli lo du'u do
> krici la'e di'u},
> > > although I admit the English gloss leaves
> much to be desired. I
> > > never said I'd make a good commissioner.
> zo'o
> >
> > But what answer can one give to that?
>
> lo du'u mi nibli le du'u li pa su'i pa du li re
>
> > Why would anyone be interested in asking
> that?
>
> I'm interested in the chain of logical
> reasoning in others' beliefs
> all the time.
>
I've been trying to figure this discussion out
for a while now. I seem to be deterred by three
factors. 1) I am not sure what is going to count
as the first place of {nibli}, since I don't
understand what can logically necessitate (etc.)
and event; logic is about words (as the name
says). I suppose that this means something like
"a claim that x1 takes places entails (etc.) a
claim that x2 takes place, according to system
x3" So, x1 and x2 are going to be events of some
sort. 2) I apparently don't know all the
subtleties of modifications in Lojban, so it is
not always clear to me what is modifying what in
the examples and thus what the differences are
among the various options presented. 3) The
English glosses help hardly at all, since most of
them are ambiguous in ways that cover several of
the possibilities here.
I take those possibilities to be:
A. It is known that x2 is necessitated by
something and that you believe you know what that
something is; the question now is "What is that
thing that you believe necessitates x2":
(Lojbans iffy in the extreme even for my shots)
{do krici lo du'u ma nibli x2}
An answer here would be some piece of evidence
you believe and that you believe necessitates x2"
(notice that x2 is an even here though a
proposition in the original sentence — as x2 of
{krici} rather than {nibli}.
B. You believe x2. Presumably, you have a reason
for this belief and, let us suppose,that reason
takes the form of believing that it is
necessitated by something else. The question now
is "What is that something else, whose
necessitating x2 justifies your belief in x2?"
An answer would be some piece(s) of evidence you
believe.
(I despair of getting this right in Lojban
sentences involving {nibli} that convey the right
associations, since another causal connective
will be needed to make it work and I am unsure
which to use and how to get the grouping right).
C. You believe x2. That you do so is
necessitated by something. Now the question is
"What necessitates your believing x2?" (Possible
answers include that you are perfectly rationa
and all the evidence (which is adequate) supports
x2.

Now, given {nibli} as written, only the third of
these (C) seems to work, for only it deals with
events exclusively. I take it that this is what
xorxes hold the various examples given all say.
xorxes also seems to think that what was intended
is B, which deals with propositions on one end at
least, hence the need for {la'e} to fit into
{nibli}. A seems to artificial to be a likely
reading in this contextless presentation, but it
would be nice to sort it out as well.
It seems what is needed is to distinguish among
A. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 within the scope of the
{du'u} after {krici}
I gather this is something like {do krici lo du'u
x2 ni'i ma}
B. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 but outside the scope
of {du'u} and {krici}
{do krici lo du'u x2kei ne ni'i ma} (?????????)
C. {ni'a ma} modifying {krici} (or rather the
whole sentence)
{ni'i ma do krici lo du'u x2} =(??) {do krici le
du'u x2 kei ni'i ma}