Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.21;
Message-ID: <542A80D4.3050504@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:07:16 +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> <5429A27F.1040906@gmx.de> <542A6562.80902@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <542A6562.80902@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
> It is a necessary part of definite descriptions, since by definition
> definite descriptions comprise a referent and an illocutionarily
> identificatory description 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 we have often taken le- to mean 'certain', and
> for that, {lo co'e noi ke'a broda} seems the appropriate Lojban
> explication. My reason for taking current le to be the voi'i version is
> that all the official documents insist it is nonveridical.
>
> The logical structure of "the cats are still in my garden" must include
> identificatory illocutionary operators, which is bothering with
> nonveridicality.
 > [...]
>> 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
> spesimbi'o} part of what is asserted (or part of the propositional
> content of whatever the sentential illocution is).

Okay, I understand now the point you are making. This is what I was 
hinting at when I said it depends on what one takes {le} to mean. You 
can think of it the way you did, or in terms of quantifiers. I was doing 
the latter, but I understand that you, and I think PC, think it has to 
be the former.

That position treats {le} like {la}. It is nothing more than a name, a 
label, and that's why the relative clause needs to have a different 
illocution, because it is used to define the label in the current 
context (and that's why it doesn't have to satisfy the predicate it is 
"named" after).

So we were simply talking about different things.

As I'm not a {le}-user myself, I don't think I'm going to try to put my 
definition on it. Let the {le}-users define what it means.

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.