Re: Gricean formula?

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@CSN.ORG>]

>> .ija pau mi gy. ka'e pilno lenu lo karce co'a minra xu?
>
>Not this either, even though I've no idea what {lo karce
>coha minra} is.

I meant "Can I use it to shine my car".

>> .iku'i na vajni vau .i ko mrilu pa bakfu be la gric. mi
>> ba'e ca .au
>
>I hope you're not disappointed.

.uu ja'a go'i

>> http://www.math.ucla.edu/%jimc by. .i zasti fa le cinri
>> nuncasnu be fi le nunsmuni be lei bridi be'o be'o noi mi
>> jinvi ledu'u la xorxes. joi la .and. cu lakne se cinri
>
>How about reporting on what jimc says? If not on Lojban list,
>then on, say, Conlang - though perhaps matters perinent to
>"generic loglan" might not be out of place on this list.

Well, I'm reluctant to get into this myself because I'm not fully
understanding the discussion between you and xorxes -- I understand the
particular points you're making but the implications of it are pretty
confusing.  I imagine the stuff in the guaspi paper is old news to linguists
and logicians, but it clarified things a little for me at least.

So I'll quote the parts that appealed to me in the Guaspi lesson:

===================FROM GUASPI DESCRIPTION======================
WHAT DEFINITIONS MEAN:
In a dictionary words are defined in one or two sentences, but for
guaspi these sentences are considered to be merely a learning aid.
The effective definition is a set of lists of thus-related referents.
For example,  the referent set of ``eats'' includes a
member list with our example rat  in first case and our example cheese
in second,  as well  as  numerous  other members containing other rats,
foods, and so on ad (almost literally) infinitum.
Other predicates  like cu,pair, have referent sets
that  are  actually infinite.


[and later on..]

When you speak  an  argument  in  a nonsentence you call the
listener's attention to its referents.  For example,

^:i |va -jiw /vn -sper -jiol        {Hey, a crocodile!}

When you speak a sentence or a subordinate assertion you do the
same thing: you call the listener's attention to the members of its referent
set.  (Thanks to John Parks-Clifford, editor of {\it The Loglanist}, for this
insight~\cite{TL43}.) Thus in:

^:i |qnu !qo -jan /tara /jun !kseo |zey !ju
            {John, the rat is after your cheese!}

your knowledge of the referent set of \trw-jun,hunt, includes a
member which John will want to append to the ones he knows, before the cheese
is stolen.  This is the ultimate meaning of the \guaspi\ sentence.


[and finally, the bit about events that seems relevant...]

Sentences as Arguments~--- Infinitives

A guaspi sentence or argument expresses a relation between specific
referents, and this specific referent set member is called an ``event''.
(Frequently the sentence represents several similar events.)

================================================================

(Chris talking again...)
I interpreted this to mean that one might think of an "event" as a candidate
set of arguments and a bridi that might apply to them, i.e. irrealis.  I
don't know if that's different from the way you and xorxes are thinking
about this, but it helped me grasp a little more of the underlying logic of
lo??an.

mi'e kris
                     ____
 Chris Bogart        \  /  ftp://ftp.csn.org/cbogart/html/homepage.html
 Quetzal Consulting   \/   cbogart@quetzal.com