Received: from mail-fa0-f63.google.com ([209.85.161.63]:37769)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDUNF3UDXIJBBQEX5CEQKGQEPCGBJZY@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1UDzlR-0002MZ-C6; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:03:31 -0800
Received: by mail-fa0-f63.google.com with SMTP id v9sf692691fav.18
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:03:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:date:from:to:subject
         :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition
         :in-reply-to:user-agent:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe;
        bh=0NvyQF8j6vkVUjLxTEW4Xfa9hG86ESv+JxYs2OEuGk8=;
        b=vqKRHTRTMEnTH2jibF9RW84vC8sZLCEj/w71kFvp4ZhrG0Ngl6NNkJjohqA4xidWNs
         dgSuUfBhNX8D8GyvYkXzDDHKnDf40LILIXm6qRGKFFQkunfpw31yzotJ3fxlwfE5KlXX
         gVA6HlfYv3omyH1F10llxYetTNrWGScg4Npe4/BhyoWFaOimfczhoI8ZWwi/TmoRpWgG
         /mYK/PVa3RzZWQqIhh8vPeXOhKRSvo6XxL2B0K+M/mBlcLxN1ab5Qxw8cA3EI8wS4VMP
         C/QUIlVvjaLDXQPBDHY1jRAKfnRMhpt8HjUzGlD66GzWZS4fRbKXb13knjdxPXMpUQG7
         Bu8Q==
X-Received: by 10.180.24.201 with SMTP id w9mr258455wif.1.1362758593514;
        Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:03:13 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.180.108.135 with SMTP id hk7ls1074962wib.2.canary; Fri, 08 Mar
 2013 08:03:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.14.184.9 with SMTP id r9mr3076066eem.7.1362758591135;
        Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dd17822.kasserver.com (dd17822.kasserver.com. [85.13.138.119])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 47si1923355eeh.1.2013.03.08.08.03.11
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.13.138.119 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of me@v4hn.de) client-ip=85.13.138.119;
Received: from samsa (brln-4dbab461.pool.mediaWays.net [77.186.180.97])
	by dd17822.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 58B8986503E
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Fri,  8 Mar 2013 17:03:10 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:03:09 +0100
From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: {le} and {lo} ... and Keith Donnellan?
Message-ID: <20130308160309.GB7011@samsa.fritz.box>
References: <20130220133507.GB3918@samsa.fritz.box>
 <e1ff2e11-29bd-4ca2-84b9-a25f278843b4@googlegroups.com>
 <5139DE1F.1050001@gmx.de>
 <5139E065.1090802@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8NvZYKFJsRX2Djef"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5139E065.1090802@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Original-Sender: me@v4hn.de
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=neutral
 (google.com: 85.13.138.119 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess
 record for domain of me@v4hn.de) smtp.mail=me@v4hn.de
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--8NvZYKFJsRX2Djef
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 01:58:13PM +0100, selpa'i wrote:
> la selpa'i cu cusku di'e
> >[snip]
>=20
> I accidently hit send, here is the rest:
>=20
> The attributive use at the bottom of my last post does not make a
> claim about an identified object, since we don't know who murdered
> Smith, just that that person must have been crazy to murder Smith.
> {lo} there is rather better than {le}.
>=20
> The referential use: "For example, suppose that Jones has been
> charged with Smith's murder and has been placed on trial. Imagine
> that there is a discussion of Jones's odd behavior at his trial. We
> might sum up our impression of his behavior by saying, "Smith's
> murderer is insane." If someone asks to whom we are referring, by
> using this description, the answer here is "Jones." This, I shall
> say, is a referential use of the definite description."
>=20
> Here, one could make an argument for {le}, the speaker knows the
> real-world object ("Jones"), and by using {le} they can try to make
> this explicit, but again, {lo} doesn't seem any worse here,
---
> especially since it's so obvious who the murderer is in this
> situation.
---
That is no supporting argument at all. It completely misses the point.
In this case the utterance _doesn't care_ about whether or not Jones
is the murderer and works without asserting that Jones is a murderer.
This can be beautifully modelled with {le} in my opinion.

{lo} on the other hand will assert that, if you link the referent of the
{lo}-expression to Jones. It might assert it in this special context,
but it will _always_ assert it.

> Overall, these distinctions don't seem very interesting in Lojban.

I disagree. I think this distinction models {le} vs {lo} quite accurately,
even though the distinction between referential and attributive use
is not very clean in NatLangs(or at least in the ones I know).


mi'e la .van. mu'o

--8NvZYKFJsRX2Djef
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlE6C70ACgkQMBKLZs4+wjzx4gCgn5wLYGSOtHlPoXyXrjTEYdq+
CL4AnA1gFsBdnkikAHnZc7LiL5BXyY76
=hq2J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8NvZYKFJsRX2Djef--