Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dustin Lacewell <dlacewell@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <af43e9ea-eb4f-479e-a4ed-7a2838503986@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LN8.2.00.1409302305580.1352@jEEED>
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com> <34b2a9f0-7ccb-4135-8795-7038cc996b42@googlegroups.com>
 <alpine.LN8.2.00.1409302305580.1352@jEEED>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: 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_850_1384616411.1412141943265"
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_850_1384616411.1412141943265
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:47:07 PM UTC-7, Alexander Kozhevnikov 
wrote:
>
> I just wanted to quickly butt in and voice disagreement with this example: 
>
> I think the answer is a clear 'yes' if you are going to effectively 
> communicate with speakers who are not familiar to your culture's 
> metaphors
>
> [...] and in this case, that means having an ability to specify in 
> a concise manner that something is or isn't metaphorical.

   
> or those who struggle with 
> metaphorical speech, such as many autistic individuals for example
>

[..a lot of stuff..]

 
> Personally, one of the points which currently draw me to Lojban is it's 
> claimed ability to allow unambiguous communication efficiently.
>

Just use {pe'u}. I don't disagree with what you're saying but it doesn't 
really sound like you're disagreeing with what I said. The question is 
whether one of our gadri, an extremely core article in the language, should 
represent non-veridicality or definite descriptions. I mean, sure, we 
should be able to be as precise as we'd like or need in the cases where 
you're speaking with those outside of your culture, or the autistic or 
extra terrestrial. I agree Lojban should support that. But I'm simply 
putting forth that {le} specifically should A) only have one semantic and 
that B) discerning between definite and indefinite descriptions is the 
semantic that has the most utility as a more fundamental aspect of speech 
than veridicality.
 

>
> Or maybe I missed the whole point of this "veridicality" discussion, in 
> which case apologies for me wasting the time you all had to spend to read 
> this. 
>

It wasn't a waste of time, what you said about the need to be able to 
express non-veridical speech, explicitly; its just that {pe'u} probably 
does that sufficiently. And there's even {le'e} if you want to efficiently 
capture both semantics at once.

-- 
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_850_1384616411.1412141943265
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:47:07 PM UTC-7, A=
lexander Kozhevnikov wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">I j=
ust wanted to quickly butt in and voice disagreement with this example:
<br><br>I think the answer is a clear 'yes' if you are going to effectively=
=20
<br>communicate with speakers who are not familiar to your culture's=20
<br>metaphors<br>
<br>[...] and in this case, that means having an ability to specify in=20
<br>a concise manner that something is or isn't metaphorical.</blockquote><=
div>&nbsp; &nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0=
;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">or thos=
e who struggle with=20
<br>metaphorical speech, such as many autistic individuals for example<br><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 2=
04, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">[..a lot of stuff..=
]</blockquote><div>&nbsp;<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: =
1ex;">Personally, one of the points which currently draw me to Lojban is it=
's=20
<br>claimed ability to allow unambiguous communication efficiently.<br></bl=
ockquote><div><br></div><div>Just use {pe'u}. I don't disagree with what yo=
u're saying but it doesn't really sound like you're disagreeing with what I=
 said. The question is whether one of our gadri, an extremely core article =
in the language, should represent non-veridicality or definite descriptions=
. I mean, sure, we should be able to be as precise as we'd like or need in =
the cases where you're speaking with those outside of your culture, or the =
autistic or extra terrestrial. I agree Lojban should support that. But I'm =
simply putting forth that {le} specifically should A) only have one semanti=
c and that B) discerning between definite and indefinite descriptions is th=
e semantic that has the most utility as a more fundamental aspect of speech=
 than veridicality.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left: 1ex;">
<br>Or maybe I missed the whole point of this "veridicality" discussion, in=
=20
<br>which case apologies for me wasting the time you all had to spend to re=
ad=20
<br>this.
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It wasn't a waste of time, what you sa=
id about the need to be able to express non-veridical speech, explicitly; i=
ts just that {pe'u} probably does that sufficiently. And there's even {le'e=
} if you want to efficiently capture both semantics at once.</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_850_1384616411.1412141943265--