Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.20;
Message-ID: <5429A27F.1040906@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:18:39 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com>	<CAO7tK2csEZWF3QqXMW7dnVx28yCt6GWe60buRHMSd5t1yyXSaw@mail.gmail.com>	<5427DCE6.9020900@gmx.de>	<4004291.GPfs8n1fLZ@caracal> <CACf3dPnNWfayhynFPtBiNPnUiipsZ45vjqZvy-TD-hd7LPgUSQ@mail.gmail.com> <54295019.6010707@gmx.de> <54298F49.8000708@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54298F49.8000708@gmail.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

la .and. cu cusku di'e
> selpa'i, On 29/09/2014 13:27:
>> la .and. cu cusku di'e
>> I think the whole notion of veridicality and non-veridicality is
>> overstated.
>
> Yes, it is overstated in CLL, early teaching materials, and Lojbab-level
> understanding of gadri, but it is nevertheless not insignificant.

It probably depends on what one takes {le} to mean. I have yet to see 
someone formulate a theory of its semantics in logical terms, and also 
how it might differ from {lo}, which I'm not convinced it does. Vague 
explanations are no longer enough to define the meaning of the different 
gadri.

>> For the definite description nature of {le}, which is its main
>> purpose, non-veridicality is irrelevant, and it would more likely to
>> be defined in terms of quantifiers in a formal logic.
>
> On the contrary, the description, with its identificatory function, is
> nonveridical; to put it another way, it has independent illocutionary
> force of an identification, not an assertion; it is not part of the
> propositional content of the main sentential illocution.

Sure, but why does that matter so much? This isn't a necessary part of 
definite descriptions, as I see it. The logical structure of "The cats 
are still in my garden"  can be examined without bothering with 
non-veridicality. Does {le} need to be different?

When I say it can be defined in terms of quantifiers, I mean that any 
expression involving {le} or {lo} has an equivalent form that uses {da}.

In the simplest form, we know that {lo broda cu brode} entails {su'oi da 
broda gi'e brode} (but not {su'o da broda gi'e brode}).

These kinds of relationships can be taken much further, so that we not 
only arrive at -> but also at <->.

For example, one possible way to define {lo} or {le} is:

lo broda cu brode
su'oi da poi ge broda gi ro'oi de poi brode zo'u de me da zo'u da brode
[Exx : broda(xx) /\ [Ayy : brode(yy)] me(yy,xx)] brode(xx)

(where double letters denote plural variables)

That's what I did in Toaq Dzu.

One could now argue about whether this is more appropriate as a 
definition of {le} rather than {lo}, but the point is that this is the 
kind of thing I would understand to be an actual definition.

Questions of veridicality are at another level, and in my opinion they 
are not specific to {le}. We know that the possible referents of {lo} 
vary wildly between domains, and in practice it doesn't matter if {lo 
broda} is used to refer to something that actually doesn't broda but 
which everyone thinks does broda, because the logical form is unaffected 
by this, it's only the domain that's different.

>> Instead of {lo broda voi brode} you can always say {lo broda noi/poi
>> mi skicu ke'a fo lo ka brode} and {noi simlu lo ka brode}.
>
> Almost. But you need to sort out the illocutionarity. Is there a UI for
> 'hereby'? What'd be good would be a ko-like version of mi, meaning "I
> hereby", such that the bridi it is a sumti of expresses an independent
> illocution: {lo broda noi/poi mi HEREBY skicu ke'a fo lo ka brode}

Yes, "hereby" is {ca'e}, the performative. The ma'oste definition is 
bad, but CLL agrees with the perfomative interpretation.

>> As this is something that is relatively rarely needed, it doesn't
>> matter that it doesn't have a shortcut cmavo.
>
> It comes prebaked into le- gadri,

Out of necessity or simply for historical reasons?

> but for any other identificatory
> phrase it's needed. E.g. for something like "the day of the week that we
> got married on", referring to Tuesday (without claiming we got married
> on Tuesday), "lo day-of-the-week identificatory-poi we got married on
> ke'a" -- much as Pierre's orangutan example.

lo jeftydei poi ca ke'a mi'o spesimbi'o
the weekday on which we got married

What problems do you see with this?

> Without it, you lose a bit of needed functionality, but you don't wreck
> the (putative) logical foundations of the language.

I do not see what would be lost by ignoring non-veridicality as a 
defining characteristic of {le} and by acknowledging it as a general 
part of human speech.

People already have trouble defining {le}; it probably doesn't help that 
it does two things at once.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.