From and.rosta@gmail.com Thu Oct 18 15:56:02 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IieHW-0007lN-T3 for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:56:01 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so542887uge for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:55:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nZ+YdR3qJMMUAIkNR1fmuRZt8yCuaLRI0l66F8nf+Rs=; b=RUZGY9aVX/6ixqA7IMsF64wft24TTRTVtmN5TBYuOJmQfO/0/SbqvIn7R3A3yyXMSbLl0zO0TNpiZCdmAGVWfSoxDZdp2vj93eQt95CLfxmjHonApB1y7pi1VGiVd1eo9rS9UrvbV1395FoLKY0tk3WBoOdfFJQWTwWDfwA4V5w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=D5LVnrv995MBs5KuS6HNMkJxbDJuz/Tw7hAieHRpx6Saqa9hl9N/sqsseXs70T5U0LOqFuEfatiP6feJ2APH0+5km2Z/gKpjEelEoRLNZv2imyA7Fd2dVT3YchhHJeTP9lhVaxtN1J1PDL1LCOhOoqMlZUwq3zQmzbZw6Q/Ayrk= Received: by 10.66.238.16 with SMTP id l16mr2340041ugh.1192748151611; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.68? ( [87.194.76.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 19sm6985309ugl.2007.10.18.15.55.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4717E473.8070701@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:55:47 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business References: <20071016193843.GI5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016194330.GF28745@mercury.ccil.org> <20071016202338.GL5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016213405.GG28745@mercury.ccil.org> <20071016213807.GO5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016220537.GI28745@mercury.ccil.org> <20071016222008.GK28745@mercury.ccil.org> <4715D3E3.5000003@gmail.com> <20071018132508.GD15126@mercury.ccil.org> <47179EF7.5060902@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: <47179EF7.5060902@lojban.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 454 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: and.rosta@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members Bob LeChevalier, On 18/10/2007 18:59: > John Cowan wrote: >>> [* In talking about the official design I'm assuming that in the >>> official design the e/o distinction was one of specificity, and that >>> veridicality was a minor detail given undue prominence as a result of >>> some early documentation compiled by linguistically inexpert people.] >> >> Indeed. > > I don't think that JCB considered the distinction to be > specificity/nonspecificity. I weren't around in them days, and you was, so let me explain the basis for my assumption. 1. It makes sense that a logical language would have a fundamental +/-specific distinction in gadri. It is a needful distinction. 2. Veridicality otoh is not independently a needful fundamental distinction. 3. (Non)veridicality happens to correlate with specificity. 4. Veridicality is easier to grasp and to explain than specificity. So the most plausible explanation is that the inventors of le/lo meant it as a specificity distinction, but that this got a bit garbled for a while. We know from experience that gadri are really really hard to explain & grock, so it's no surprise that many would have had an imperfect understanding of them. --And.