From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Oct 17 14:09:15 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IiG8h-0001aN-1M for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:09:15 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IiG8a-0001ZW-Hq for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:09:14 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 4so1719877nfv for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:09:04 -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:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=IttxKZReoZTZ7UmNE6tYGcBCoRCq7Q5qo+O/7u3OVhM=; b=QWfVZnRyRAZWtZpf1XWJd1hgxdkHLwqdljva9HicytdzqM/3kd0AAapPTbgBJCxgCNUMmJSAMJWtEZyLCKyfNjHq5T0bSM3MYydwLuNyDWhwjAcgWCCugeXSoMnm2qJN32fssRD1TLk37Se+9nE+XTyw9CEtHiUhMM+8/AGDCTw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=JRlHOazDWO8QuwssLkdP/G1Xz7y3m5vxWYIi4NjzznqIoizWGJU8xKwXfIFr6Lsfhm+uM1mwhfMQw1MfFX3IFd9QCq/vVOxL+HizjNcrF6Jy7dcYb5KqMhir4ylf/pFQ6k2NgLQFNPal7tM/UcZqP+BTQAnyE9PZjrOleukawTE= Received: by 10.86.77.5 with SMTP id z5mr7157429fga.1192655344356; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.86.13 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560710171409k15ea657dve5fdc1096cd683fd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:09:04 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why not a new LfB text? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <559018.59883.qm@web88003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <47164A52.90802@lojban.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5491 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On 10/17/07, Matt Arnold wrote: > > The original difference between {lo} and {le} is that > one of them is veridical ("that which really is") and the other one > isn't ("that which I describe as, but I'm not committed to the truth > of that description"). I have always found it to be loaded with a vast > epistemological burden. > > The new difference between {lo} and {le} in xorlo is that {lo cribe} > is generic bears in general, and {le cribe} is a specific bear you > have in mind. Carry that forward to the distinction between {lei} and > {loi}, {le'i} and {lo'i}, etc. It's interesting that many people seem to think that's the difference between gadri as described in CLL and xorlo, but it isn't quite that. CLL says: "The specific purpose of ``le'' is twofold. First, it indicates that the speaker has one or more specific markets in mind (whether or not the listener knows which ones they are). Second, it also indicates that the speaker is merely describing the things he or she has in mind as markets, without being committed to the truth of that description." "The second descriptor dealt with in this section is ``lo''. Unlike ``le'', ``lo'' is nonspecific:" "The effect of using ``lo'' in Example 2.4 is to refer generally to one or more markets, without being specific about which. Unlike ``le zarci'', ``lo zarci'' must refer to something which actually is a market (that is, which can appear in the x1 place of a truthful bridi whose selbri is ``zarci'')." So what you call "the new difference between {lo} and {le} in xorlo" is not new at all, it's already there in CLL and has always been in the language, inherited from Loglan. And in xorlo too, the thing referred to with {le broda} need not be something that necessarily fits the x1 of broda, while that described with {lo broda} has to be something that will fit the x1 of broda. xorlo eschews the nonsense that {lo} somehow requires existence in the real world, as if {lo xanri} or {lo crida} or {lo na zasti} were somehow contradiction in terms, as if you could not speak non-specifically about imaginary stuff. {lo crida} has to be used to talk about gnomes, not about a table that I find convenient to describe as a gnome. That's what veridicality means, it's not a claim of existence. As far as veridicality goes, xorlo simply clarifies that "really is" does not mean "really exists in the real world". The real difference is actually more subtle and has to do with default quantifiers: xorlo has none. It's not even possible to explain the difference without using {lo broda} in a sentence, because outer quantifiers only make sense in the context of a sentence. They don't mean much by themselves in an isolated sumti. mu'o mi'e xorxes