Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <dedf3958-89f4-4f61-9abc-6fcedb8e6706@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <5447269e-70a3-4825-9d3d-40b7a9e24876@googlegroups.com>
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>
 <5429A27F.1040906@gmx.de>
 <5447269e-70a3-4825-9d3d-40b7a9e24876@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1192_432663430.1412034522448"
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_1192_432663430.1412034522448
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, TR NS wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 29, 2014 2:18:43 PM UTC-4, selpa'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 
>> 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. 
>>
>>
> "The logical theory of descriptions, following Russell (1905), gives a 
> slightly different account of these matters, namely that the description 
> '(i)Fx' purports to name (i.e., designate) the one and only object of which 
> 'F' is true, '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 Waverly 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 expressions commencing with 'the' in everyday 
> speech, e.g., 'the man', 'the red thing', etc. What *is* common to all 
> such expressions is the intention of the speaker to single out however 
> crudely (e.g. 'the whachamacallit') the unique object, or set of objects, 
> about which da has something to say. That such expressions *use* predicates 
> is apparently misleading, for they do not use them predicatively; any more 
> than names used vocatively actually name. On the view taken in this book, 
> no claim whatever is made by a description. What is signified by the use of 
> one is (among other things) the speaker's readiness to help the listener 
> locate the unique object about which da has something to say. We may say 
> that this *implies* that da believes that such objects exist, but this 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)."
>
 
Sorry, I forgot the citation. This is Loglan 1, Chapter 4, Footnote 4 (or 8 
depending on the edition).

Also, I should probably have used F instead of P to tie in with the quote. 
But you get the idea.

-- 
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.

------=_Part_1192_432663430.1412034522448
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, TR=
 NS wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left:=
 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br=
><br>On Monday, September 29, 2014 2:18:43 PM UTC-4, selpa'i wrote:<blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">la .and. cu cusku di'e
<br>&gt; selpa'i, On 29/09/2014 13:27:
<br>&gt;&gt; la .and. cu cusku di'e
<br>&gt;&gt; I think the whole notion of veridicality and non-veridicality =
is
<br>&gt;&gt; overstated.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; Yes, it is overstated in CLL, early teaching materials, and Lojbab=
-level
<br>&gt; understanding of gadri, but it is nevertheless not insignificant.
<br>
<br>It probably depends on what one takes {le} to mean. I have yet to see=
=20
<br>someone formulate a theory of its semantics in logical terms, and also=
=20
<br>how it might differ from {lo}, which I'm not convinced it does. Vague=
=20
<br>explanations are no longer enough to define the meaning of the differen=
t=20
<br>gadri.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-f=
amily:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium">"</span><span style=3D"color:rgb(=
0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium">The logical theory o=
f descriptions, following Russell (1905), gives a slightly different accoun=
t of these matters, namely that the description '(i)Fx' purports to name (i=
.e., designate) the one and only object of which 'F' is true, 'F' being som=
e predicate expression which allows this interpretation, e.g., 'is an autho=
r 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 Waverly and, for an=
y y, if y is an author of Waverly, then y is identical to x.' But the uniqu=
eness claim is patently false for the majority of expressions commencing wi=
th 'the' in everyday speech, e.g., 'the man', 'the red thing', etc. What&nb=
sp;</span><em style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-=
size:medium">is</em><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New =
Roman';font-size:medium">&nbsp;common to all such expressions is the intent=
ion of the speaker to single out however crudely (e.g. 'the whachamacallit'=
) the unique object, or set of objects, about which da has something to say=
. That such expressions&nbsp;</span><em style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-fami=
ly:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium">use</em><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0=
,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium">&nbsp;predicates is app=
arently misleading, for they do not use them predicatively; any more than n=
ames used vocatively actually name. On the view taken in this book, no clai=
m whatever is made by a description. What is signified by the use of one is=
 (among other things) the speaker's readiness to help the listener locate t=
he unique object about which da has something to say. We may say that this&=
nbsp;</span><em style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';fon=
t-size:medium">implies</em><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Tim=
es New Roman';font-size:medium">&nbsp;that da believes that such objects ex=
ist, but this is a different matter. No one may be accused of claiming ever=
ything that da's words imply. There is more on this in&nbsp;</span><cite st=
yle=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium">Log=
lan 2</cite><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';f=
ont-size:medium">, Chapter 8 (Brown 1969b, reprinted in&nbsp;</span><cite s=
tyle=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium">TL=
2</cite><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-=
size:medium">:31-41)."</span></div></div></blockquote><div>&nbsp;</div><div=
>Sorry, I forgot the citation. This is Loglan 1, Chapter 4, Footnote 4 (or =
8 depending on the edition).</div><div><br></div><div>Also, I should probab=
ly have used F instead of P to tie in with the quote. But you get the idea.=
</div><div><br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_1192_432663430.1412034522448--