Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 18:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dustin Lacewell <dlacewell@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <6acaff0f-0e17-478d-b88b-77085cc4709c@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <542C9C6B.8080704@gmail.com>
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com> <34b2a9f0-7ccb-4135-8795-7038cc996b42@googlegroups.com>
 <542C9C6B.8080704@gmail.com>
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_44_922770992.1412214661906"
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_44_922770992.1412214661906
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 5:29:39 PM UTC-7, And Rosta wrote:
>
> 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 
> not everybody thinks it should), {le} must be a Definite Article. If you 
> nixed "nonveridical" and kept "in-mind" then "le broda" would mean not "the 
> broda" 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 
> article, by its very nature, introduces a nonveridical description. 


Okay so, you're clearly far more learned than I am when it comes to zoology 
that is technical linguistics nomenclature but let me say - I don't think 
we disagree. That you demonstrate a position where {le} constitutes a 
definite article is enough for me. The way in which I laid out a case for a 
definitive article understanding of {le} was no doubt that of a bumbling 
lay person. I'd like a chance to at least elaborate a little bit about what 
I meant so that you can agree that we actually agree (which will feel good) 
or at least so you understand more precisely where I don't understand the 
technical context.

 
> The description is not part of the propositional content of the main 
> illocution but instead constitutes the propositional content of an 
> autonomous illocution of identification. 


So this is relevant to how I was trying to frame my case for a Definite 
{le}. In my mind, I have the case of Definite Descriptions and Indefinite 
Descriptions as conceptually isolate from the consequence or relevancy of 
veridicality. In my mind, as I think I stated, I'm preeeeeetty sure when 
you think about it, all speech is practically non-veridical. Every 
description by which we refer to something is an attempt to encourage 
success in our interlocutors to identify it. This at least 'sounds like' 
what you're saying too.

If the point I'm missing is that by using a definite description by which 
to refer to something I'm automatically or inherently creating 
non-veridical speech I'm okay with that observation. Afterall, I already 
take the position that -most- referential/descriptive speech is 
non-veridical anyway. What I wonder is how when we make an indefinite 
description such as "men" as in "Men are mortal", how this doesn't also 
create non-veridical speech in the practical sense? Maybe its a subtlety of 
what non-veridical and veridical means that my current understanding 
doesn't really cover.

But that said, my insistence on getting away from the non-veridical sense 
in trying to understand {le} is because I would like to emphasize to anyone 
reading that it is the distinction against *indefinite descriptions* through 
which {le} can be best understood. If one can understand how indefinite 
descriptions avoid even the potential for identification by the listener or 
mindful referentiality by the speaker, then you can more readily understand 
what it means to make a *definite description*. What 'capability in 
identification' really means. Not that the speaker is so precise that we 
know what they are referring to because they have described it really well 
- but because definite descriptions *support *referrents. In the opposite 
way that indefinite descriptions *do not*.

I'm definitely sure you understand the difference between definite and 
indefinite descriptions but I wanted to explain why I tried to distance the 
conversation about caring about veridicality at all. It is the ability of 
{le} to create *definite descriptions* which is important that I wanted to 
impart to others trying to understand {le} from the definite perspective. 

-- 
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_44_922770992.1412214661906
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 5:29:39 PM UTC-7, An=
d Rosta wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-l=
eft: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Dustin Lacewell,=
 On 30/09/2014 22:51:
<br>&gt; I have -never- used {le} to indicate a non-veridical description.
<br>[...]
<br>&gt; {le} has always existed as a Definite Article for me.
<br>
<br>If {le}'s definition as "in-mind" and "nonveridical" stands (and clearl=
y not everybody thinks it should), {le} must be a Definite Article. If you =
nixed "nonveridical" and kept "in-mind" then "le broda" would mean not "the=
 broda" but "certain broda", which is also a useful candidate meaning.
<br>
<br>To you, Dustin, I would say the same as I said to selpa'i: the definite=
 article, by its very nature, introduces a nonveridical description. </bloc=
kquote><div><br></div><div>Okay so, you're clearly far more learned than I =
am when it comes to zoology that is technical linguistics nomenclature but =
let me say - I don't think we disagree. That you demonstrate a position whe=
re {le} constitutes a definite article is enough for me. The way in which I=
 laid out a case for a definitive article understanding of {le} was no doub=
t that of a bumbling lay person. I'd like a chance to at least elaborate a =
little bit about what I meant so that you can agree that we actually agree =
(which will feel good) or at least so you understand more precisely where I=
 don't understand the technical context.</div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</d=
iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;=
border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">The description is not part=
 of the propositional content of the main illocution but instead constitute=
s the propositional content of an autonomous illocution of identification. =
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>So this is relevant to how I was trying to=
 frame my case for a Definite {le}. In my mind, I have the case of Definite=
 Descriptions and Indefinite Descriptions as conceptually isolate from the =
consequence or relevancy of veridicality. In my mind, as I think I stated, =
I'm preeeeeetty sure when you think about it, all speech is practically non=
-veridical. Every description by which we refer to something is an attempt =
to encourage success in our interlocutors to identify it. This at least 'so=
unds like' what you're saying too.</div><div><br></div><div>If the point I'=
m missing is that by using a definite description by which to refer to some=
thing I'm automatically or inherently creating non-veridical speech I'm oka=
y with that observation. Afterall, I already take the position that -most- =
referential/descriptive speech is non-veridical anyway. What I wonder is ho=
w when we make an indefinite description such as "men" as in "Men are morta=
l", how this doesn't also create non-veridical speech in the practical sens=
e? Maybe its a subtlety of what non-veridical and veridical means that my c=
urrent understanding doesn't really cover.</div><div><br></div><div>But tha=
t said, my insistence on getting away from the non-veridical sense in tryin=
g to understand {le} is because I would like to emphasize to anyone reading=
 that it is the distinction against <i>indefinite descriptions</i>&nbsp;thr=
ough which {le} can be best understood. If one can understand how indefinit=
e descriptions avoid even the potential for identification by the listener =
or mindful referentiality by the speaker, then you can more readily underst=
and what it means to make a <i>definite description</i>. What 'capability i=
n identification' really means. Not that the speaker is so precise that we =
know what they are referring to because they have described it really well =
- but because definite descriptions <i>support </i>referrents. In the oppos=
ite way that indefinite descriptions <i>do not</i>.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>I'm definitely sure you understand the difference between definite and in=
definite descriptions but I wanted to explain why I tried to distance the c=
onversation about caring about veridicality at all. It is the ability of {l=
e} to create <i>definite descriptions</i>&nbsp;which is important that I wa=
nted to impart to others trying to understand {le} from the definite perspe=
ctive.&nbsp;</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_44_922770992.1412214661906--