Received: from mail-ig0-f185.google.com ([209.85.213.185]:40587) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XYkbX-0006P4-Gu for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:43:47 -0700 Received: by mail-ig0-f185.google.com with SMTP id hn15sf537759igb.12 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:43:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=aYjTMPGeS/90LucssLvG21yzjUe8O9Wtr2kiP5N88bc=; b=LPLKYm1ZZgbh1BmPuaa6dR3FgiCAAYIcbhaKTGUzHR1jCJLxj9ZqV7MNR9NonnZUIr uhq49uauMwnPDtFCV8JqczslNcqu+rppb0VcQWDK4bxjUi53bleWvzdDQGIM+nzx+gmh tV0EitejAd5A/OZtAb3uY5hprKkeiAycSShmD6XlAh+SQ7/SnU2LO64esWFnWXMObUvT WVIGNzNj7W9S5SgnSb0HPXFpo597UF10o0uVocxuXdq9BMTHgt8zTr+10sZHurQWIV2t aFIipuUbdTI+3DXmtRkgYJJoCUcfQfOK2QxDQh7i82Nvm9tKJY3O9lrN+G9qz8kfyqjh YlSQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=aYjTMPGeS/90LucssLvG21yzjUe8O9Wtr2kiP5N88bc=; b=hA1nxm7AogO+4OPWTKMhtTDvH+vgvu62JBXlcJdLLI2NdUkye0jJVJUgcVrXmGHN4R k42FHns6cFqA2+6J8FkVXt4XANxzhvKxPLkoKKIcRbP0dxaeB+bpstyIZ8M9e/5sCEoC /5ue9JKmh/+rVEIuvSnbetUtYg6nC42ReOzc2q4d4SVvl9z3rrb6yptW3iKlPeIGDU7W sDsEsttVvMcCGdILzfVchSAE5PO1U+qMAvDQTbW07zcMZ0Uq+cWytv2yt+5Zjbu5jqma zaFsrrDUZeQ/e91pCoqkUncVkB8EhZTw+6l/W2cPnXdrk9HBkyzPO9nyq6UDZI9SVWiN HvUw== X-Received: by 10.140.94.10 with SMTP id f10mr28501qge.11.1412034216799; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:43:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.30.195 with SMTP id d61ls2225451qgd.68.gmail; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:43:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.101.235 with SMTP id u98mr7913qge.22.1412034216530; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:43:35 -0700 (PDT) From: TR NS To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <5447269e-70a3-4825-9d3d-40b7a9e24876@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <5429A27F.1040906@gmx.de> References: <5427DCE6.9020900@gmx.de> <4004291.GPfs8n1fLZ@caracal> <54295019.6010707@gmx.de> <54298F49.8000708@gmail.com> <5429A27F.1040906@gmx.de> Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni} MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: transfire@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1704_103889805.1412034215846" X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- ------=_Part_1704_103889805.1412034215846 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Monday, September 29, 2014 2:18:43 PM UTC-4, selpa'i wrote: > > la .and. cu cusku di'e=20 > > selpa'i, On 29/09/2014 13:27:=20 > >> la .and. cu cusku di'e=20 > >> I think the whole notion of veridicality and non-veridicality is=20 > >> overstated.=20 > >=20 > > Yes, it is overstated in CLL, early teaching materials, and Lojbab-leve= l=20 > > understanding of gadri, but it is nevertheless not insignificant.=20 > > It probably depends on what one takes {le} to mean. I have yet to see=20 > someone formulate a theory of its semantics in logical terms, and also=20 > how it might differ from {lo}, which I'm not convinced it does. Vague=20 > explanations are no longer enough to define the meaning of the different= =20 > gadri.=20 > > "The logical theory of descriptions, following Russell (1905), gives a=20 slightly different account of these matters, namely that the description=20 '(i)Fx' purports to name (i.e., designate) the one and only object of which= =20 'F' is true, 'F' being some predicate expression which allows this=20 interpretation, e.g., 'is an author of Waverly' (see, for example, Quine=20 1961a:222). On this interpretation 'the author of Waverly' (Russell's=20 classic example) is taken to contain the covert claim 'There is an x such= =20 that x is an author of Waverly and, for any y, if y is an author of=20 Waverly, then y is identical to x.' But the uniqueness claim is patently=20 false for the majority of expressions commencing with 'the' in everyday=20 speech, e.g., 'the man', 'the red thing', etc. What *is* common to all such= =20 expressions is the intention of the speaker to single out however crudely= =20 (e.g. 'the whachamacallit') the unique object, or set of objects, about=20 which da has something to say. That such expressions *use* predicates is=20 apparently misleading, for they do not use them predicatively; any more=20 than names used vocatively actually name. On the view taken in this book,= =20 no claim whatever is made by a description. What is signified by the use of= =20 one is (among other things) the speaker's readiness to help the listener=20 locate the unique object about which da has something to say. We may say=20 that this *implies* that da believes that such objects exist, but this is a= =20 different matter. No one may be accused of claiming everything that da's=20 words imply. There is more on this in Loglan 2, Chapter 8 (Brown 1969b,=20 reprinted in TL2:31-41)." I would very much like to read Loglan 2 Chapter 8 to learn more, but I have= =20 to find a copy of Loglan 2. In any case, my take away from this is that the= =20 definition of le is essentially: =E2=88=83X: P(X) and if =E2=88=83Y: P(Y) then Y=3DX, with the proviso C= (X) & C(Y).=20 P is the descriptive predicate and C means "is within the context of=20 conversation". I am inclined to think that this last part is the the=20 missing logic that could tie Russell's thinking in with JCBs. --=20 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 e= mail 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. ------=_Part_1704_103889805.1412034215846 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Monday, September 29, 2014 2:18:43 PM UTC-4, se= lpa'i wrote:
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= =20
someone formulate a theory of its semantics in logical terms, and also= =20
how it might differ from {lo}, which I'm not convinced it does. Vague= =20
explanations are no longer enough to define the meaning of the differen= t=20
gadri.


"The = logical theory of descriptions, following Russell (1905), gives a slightly = different account of these matters, namely that the description '(i)Fx' pur= ports to name (i.e., designate) the one and only object of which 'F' is tru= e, 'F' being some predicate expression which allows this interpretation, e.= g., 'is an author of Waverly' (see, for example, Quine 1961a:222). On this = interpretation 'the author of Waverly' (Russell's classic example) is taken= to contain the covert claim 'There is an x such that x is an author of Wav= erly and, for any y, if y is an author of Waverly, then y is identical to x= .' But the uniqueness claim is patently false for the majority of expressio= ns commencing with 'the' in everyday speech, e.g., 'the man', 'the red thin= g', etc. What is common to al= l such expressions is the intention of the speaker to single out however cr= udely (e.g. 'the whachamacallit') the unique object, or set of objects, abo= ut which da has something to say. That such expressions use predicates is apparently misleading, for the= y do not use them predicatively; any more than names used vocatively actual= ly name. On the view taken in this book, no claim whatever is made by a des= cription. What is signified by the use of one is (among other things) the s= peaker's readiness to help the listener locate the unique object about whic= h da has something to say. We may say that this impl= ies that da believes that such objects exist, but th= is is a different matter. No one may be accused of claiming everything that= da's words imply. There is more on this in Loglan= 2, Chapter 8 (Brown 1969b, reprinted in TL2:31-41)."
<= br>
I would very much like to read Loglan 2 C= hapter 8 to learn more, but I have to find a copy of Loglan 2. In any case,= my take away from this is that the definition of le is essentially:=

   &nb= sp;=E2=88=83X: P(X) and if =E2=88=83Y:= P(Y) then Y=3DX, with the proviso C(X) & C(Y). <= /div>
P is the descript= ive predicate and C means "is within the context of conversation". I am inc= lined to think that this last part is the the missing logic that could tie = Russell's thinking in with JCBs.

<= /div>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_1704_103889805.1412034215846--