Received: from mail-wg0-f57.google.com ([74.125.82.57]:51775)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDNZFNNFVAHRB4FYWKQQKGQE4JEXONI@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1XZUH9-0004KK-Ns
	for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:29:47 -0700
Received: by mail-wg0-f57.google.com with SMTP id a1sf73177wgh.12
        for <lojban-list-archive@lojban.org>; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:29:37 -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=13yJrwC+Vta5blSAjLjqisMnECDnE5iEm9zpCTwUVmE=;
        b=LzMUgKwzCuAkcQU3X5bzdT07/E18fhmfZMpd4wdi9imP2zuNouvh3mLVPn3pNzPe8p
         31QLdkT9v6hNlPePpoyfYrI/yCDqC4RxN6AJbd7RldraRTpT4R1SUa9pl9G9oNZkHA79
         7yUjAaq+/FbKTzVbD76UuYb3mYmpGae6CTnPSIr/42l2japH9dhqPSvbE1skSssV5rph
         DRFswuXiSFR7AURZG7Fzf11iMje+NQz9GW4plSpPA0H/vWpljUv7k1ysuSyfe+RkKEXH
         QltZB+wcdhOHS0FWu0H8t6nQSfjDocAmqmgkkOreEATVxqf5GXVsr6Y7QWWYZx8gjED4
         a/tw==
X-Received: by 10.152.19.226 with SMTP id i2mr412223lae.5.1412209776967;
        Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.152.7.141 with SMTP id j13ls233207laa.5.gmail; Wed, 01 Oct
 2014 17:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.112.157.193 with SMTP id wo1mr15573lbb.19.1412209775594;
        Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id go4si194929wib.3.2014.10.01.17.29.35
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e;
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id k14so2004080wgh.29
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.204.232 with SMTP id lb8mr69634334wjc.0.1412209775505;
        Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([95.147.226.63])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dc9sm20174228wib.5.2014.10.01.17.29.33
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <542C9C6B.8080704@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 01:29:31 +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] Re: Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com> <34b2a9f0-7ccb-4135-8795-7038cc996b42@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <34b2a9f0-7ccb-4135-8795-7038cc996b42@googlegroups.com>
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:c00::22e
 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: -

Dustin Lacewell, On 30/09/2014 22:51:
> I have -never- used {le} to indicate a non-veridical description.
[...]
> {le} has always existed as a Definite Article for me.

If {le}'s definition as "in-mind" and "nonveridical" stands (and clearly no=
t everybody thinks it should), {le} must be a Definite Article. If you nixe=
d "nonveridical" and kept "in-mind" then "le broda" would mean not "the bro=
da" but "certain broda", which is also a useful candidate meaning.

To you, Dustin, I would say the same as I said to selpa'i: the definite art=
icle, by its very nature, introduces a nonveridical description. The descri=
ption is not part of the propositional content of the main illocution but i=
nstead constitutes the propositional content of an autonomous illocution of=
 identification. Therefore, without realizing it, you have always used {le}=
 to indicate a non-veridical description. The reason you and selpa'i though=
t otherwise is that you have apparently understood 'nonveridical' in a way =
that is etymologically appropriate but contextually and technically inappro=
priate, namely as constituting something like a lack of necessary adherence=
 to literalness, whereas in the context of discussion of definite descripti=
ons it has the different more technical sense I explained above.

> The example I habitually provide is, imagine some men are hanging out
> by a water-cooler and some women walking past hear them making sexist
> remarks. One women isn't going to confuse the other by saying
> something like "Those dogs are disgusting".

Equally the speaker could say "Those disgusting ones are dogs", where the l=
ess literal predicate is the main predicate outside the definite descriptio=
n. Regardless of the literalness or figurativeness of either sentence, the =
part that is outside the definite description is what is asserted (so is te=
chnically veridical), while the part that is inside the definite descriptio=
n is not asserted (so is technically nonveridical) but rather serves to ide=
ntify the referent.

Incidentally, I agree with cognitive linguistics that there is no natural c=
lear-cut cognitive distinction between literalness and figurativeness. Lojb=
anists who think it is feasible (or even desirable) to insist on always mar=
king deviations from literalness are chasing a mirage. Veridicality in the =
technical sense has nothing to do with spurious literalness but rather with=
 the logical structure, where I understand the logical structure to include=
 illouctionary oerators.

--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.