Received: from mail-lb0-f190.google.com ([209.85.217.190]:49007)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDNZFNNFVAHRBNOKVGQQKGQEFUSW5AQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1XYsV4-0003vW-F1
	for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:09:38 -0700
Received: by mail-lb0-f190.google.com with SMTP id l4sf10424lbv.27
        for <lojban-list-archive@lojban.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help
         :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=gGlhKWIVG2GzvvD+OBIKeAJBtFjANPGhoYHXWadWIV8=;
        b=vh2kjjOitP2Oc4XgbkkNosEXJRXoqQPRZnh+K9A5kj0j7IXlDVJTofM0I81szio8Wh
         yD5lSMV4UFn9AernfEl/3vRB6IldJRlfESft0f9ZS88yeSYE0qsn0Ha53j1FXkkNXo0L
         88jWBZYhZ88GZ3/aOt9ewRrDJ13zVr1Ni+CAbOD/LLOaJyrIOjUhGVQ4W7RaU1TFkAr3
         iG7KwABU/pYvlwW328cGde39QmI1YKqdtmzge0Cf5mEOy5GcSLVwX1xXofylDoKcQ5Lf
         C6MrUloiAFA+J14P/wbnXALw8b7gjTP78K4SGksrvfhsxBVpkPbiv/O8DwDxH1dsADkm
         mUvQ==
X-Received: by 10.152.28.66 with SMTP id z2mr841662lag.3.1412064566869;
        Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.152.37.1 with SMTP id u1ls11645laj.20.gmail; Tue, 30 Sep 2014
 01:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.152.6.195 with SMTP id d3mr6378laa.10.1412064565448;
        Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::231])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f9si503540wib.2.2014.09.30.01.09.25
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::231;
Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id cc10so2811372wib.10
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.78.4 with SMTP id x4mr51228476wjw.44.1412064565313;
        Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([2.31.159.39])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k2sm16500955wjy.34.2014.09.30.01.09.24
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <542A6562.80902@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:10:10 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0
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> <5429A27F.1040906@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <5429A27F.1040906@gmx.de>
X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=pass
 (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::231
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com;       dkim=pass
 header.i=@gmail.com;       dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
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>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

selpa'i, On 29/09/2014 19:18:
> 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.

Upthread, I said {le broda} =3D {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where voi'i =3D=
 nonveridical noi and nonveridicality amounts to illocutionary identificati=
onality. That's not vague.
 =20
>>> 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?

It is a necessary part of definite descriptions, since by definition defini=
te descriptions comprise a referent and an illocutionarily identificatory d=
escription of it. IOW, {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda} is simply an explication =
in Lojban of what a definite description is. Now, it's also the case that w=
e have often taken le- to mean 'certain', and for that, {lo co'e noi ke'a b=
roda} seems the appropriate Lojban explication. My reason for taking curren=
t le to be the voi'i version is that all the official documents insist it i=
s nonveridical.

The logical structure of "the cats are still in my garden" must include ide=
ntificatory illocutionary operators, which is bothering with nonveridicalit=
y.

[...]
> 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.

So now, for the noi and the voi'i versions, you can have one for le-.

> 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.

You're failing to recognize that literal nonveridicality is just a byproduc=
t of the illocutionary type involved.

>> It comes prebaked into le- gadri,
>
> Out of necessity or simply for historical reasons?

As English shows, {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda} and {lo co'e noi ke'a broda} a=
re each sensical and useful and pretty necessary; and for historical reason=
s it was the former that originally seems to have been intended, tho at lea=
st by the time we get to Lojban, it all seems to have got garbled in transm=
ission, and by the time John Cowan had to make sense of it to write CLL, th=
ere was a doctrinaire culture adjuring him to try to document things as the=
y already were.

>> 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?

Illocutionarily different from the original; it makes {ca ke'a mi'o spesimb=
i'o} part of what is asserted (or part of the propositional content of what=
ever the sentential illocution is).
 =20
>> 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.

That misunderstands. Loose use -- sloppy match between what is said and wha=
t is described -- is not the same as the nonveridicality of definite descri=
ptions, where the nonveridicality is merely a conspicuous consequence of th=
e illocutionary force. So what is gained or lost by nonveridicality as a de=
fining characteristic of {le} is precisely the illocutionary difference bet=
ween {voi'i} and {noi}.

--And.

--=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.