Received: from mail-lb0-f192.google.com ([209.85.217.192]:61032) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XbGUM-0001B2-Vy for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:10:51 -0700 Received: by mail-lb0-f192.google.com with SMTP id f15sf541262lbj.9 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:10:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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; bh=PO9fgn5wEnQ9Y3rTqeksJg99gJe07qQPfrlUYguQGys=; b=dwVObVRtfDs9TpuQYtFIuSD7vFpYNC5jBuURIxVF+pnNDWw12/BXcdxVdi0yCN8scW VQfJ8ev/CsqMboJ6eQ/gmyRzrELWltKwi9mkoK0oCF6Gg5HIbaFDoSzvNAXc+3/vTg2d nci6RntSR1/TdrwLCdartOrGxNedeZGJKzmVpeB8Xudr2bvB6LWZSNLIwSCRf1/Bd4Wc TJgjODW6CqdWjvT7p9e/KXNM3g9rFaR3VXxe+xE1dnsNUWpnqLlShPS68UEY2CKjFS4T w3JYJCCjzSOBMxbX2hQJesom++SO9KJWLnBKQH7snJFIOlXzEkWxojhVj4VjgtE21pK9 BTRw== X-Received: by 10.152.28.66 with SMTP id z2mr409920lag.3.1412633435497; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:10:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.19.5 with SMTP id a5ls624185lae.19.gmail; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:10:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.19.131 with SMTP id f3mr4172179lae.0.1412633434453; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22e.google.com (mail-lb0-x22e.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id us10si1656197lbc.1.2014.10.06.15.10.34 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e; Received: by mail-lb0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id p9so5093904lbv.19 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:10:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.118.227 with SMTP id kp3mr26263025lbb.75.1412633434356; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.25.229 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:10:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales> <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 19:10:34 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd921b40d81150504c85a42 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --047d7bd921b40d81150504c85a42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM, And Rosta wrote: > > On 5 Oct 2014 23:38, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" wrote: > > The presupposition is that when you use "lo plise" there's something yo= u > are talking about, and that something is identified by their satisfying t= he > predicate "plise". > > What sort of identification is this? It sounds like you're saying lo is > definite, and attributing to it the sense I had understood le to have, wi= th > nonveridical description? > I looked up "veridicality" in Wikipedia, to see if we are talking about the same thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veridicality According to that article, a propositional operator F is veridical iff Fp -> p, otherwise F is nonveridical. With that definition, "lo" is neither veridical nor nonveridical because it is not a propositional operator. The sense in which I take "lo" to be veridical is that the predicate it uses as its input must be true of the referents of the expression it returns as its output. "lo" takes a predicate as input and returns a referring expression as output, a propositional operator takes propositions as input and returns a proposition as output. I'm not saying that the speaker of "lo" is asserting that the referents of "lo broda" are broda, rather they are taking that for granted. > I'd understood {lo plise cu plise} to be necessarily true, but you seem > not to, yes? > It must be true, as long as it makes sense, i.e. as long as "lo plise" has referents. If "lo plise" doesn't have referents it's neither true nor false, although this can only happen very rarely because of the "don't think of an elephant" effect. Since the universe of discourse is something very flexible, just using an expression like "lo plise" is usually enough to bring in at least one referent for "lo plise" into the UD. It's hard to say that even something like "square circles are square circles" is not true, because talking about square circles presupposes that there are square circles, and in that case they must be square circles, what else could they be? It's easier to accommodate our ontology so as to allow square circles in it (at least temporarily and until it becomes untenable) than to invoke a failure of reference. In any case, I would say that "lo plise cu plise" is necessarily not false. > So {lo broda cu brodu} is not equivalent to {zo'e ge broda gi brodu}? > I would say they are not equivalent because that it brodas is in one case presupposed and in the other case asserted. > If this is already covered somewhere else on wiki or in archives, just > point me to it. > I don't think there is any concentrated full coverage anywhere. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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. --047d7bd921b40d81150504c85a42 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:


On 5 Oct 2014 23:38, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:=
> The presupposition is that when you use "lo plise" there'= ;s something you are talking about, and that something is identified by the= ir satisfying the predicate "plise".

What sort of identification is this? It sounds like y= ou're saying lo is definite, and attributing to it the sense I had unde= rstood le to have, with nonveridical description?


=
I looked up "veridicality" in Wikipedia, to see if we = are talking about the same thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veridicality

According to that article, a propositional operator F is veridical= iff Fp -> p, otherwise F is nonveridical.

With= that definition, "lo" is neither veridical nor nonveridical beca= use it is not a propositional operator.

The sense = in which I take "lo" to be veridical is that the predicate it use= s as its input must be true of the referents of the expression it returns a= s its output. "lo" takes a predicate as input and returns a refer= ring expression as output, a propositional operator takes propositions as i= nput and returns a proposition as output. I'm not saying that the speak= er of "lo" is asserting that the referents of "lo broda"= ; are broda, rather they are taking that for granted.
=C2=A0

I'd understood {lo plise cu plise} to be necessarily tru= e, but you seem not to, yes?

It must be true, as long = as it makes sense, i.e. as long as "lo plise" has referents. If &= quot;lo plise" doesn't have referents it's neither true nor fa= lse, although this can only happen very rarely because of the "don'= ;t think of an elephant" effect. Since the universe of discourse is so= mething very flexible, just using an expression like "lo plise" i= s usually enough to bring in at least one referent for "lo plise"= into the UD. It's hard to say that even something like "square ci= rcles are square circles" is not true, because talking about square ci= rcles presupposes that there are square circles, and in that case they must= be square circles, what else could they be? It's easier to accommodate= our ontology so as to allow square circles in it (at least temporarily and= until it becomes untenable) than to invoke a failure of reference. In any = case, I would say that "lo plise cu plise" is necessarily not fal= se. =C2=A0

So {lo broda cu brodu} is n= ot equivalent to {zo'e ge broda gi brodu}?

I would= say they are not equivalent because that it brodas is in one case presuppo= sed and in the other case asserted.=C2=A0

If this is already covered somewhere else on wiki or in arch= ives, just point me to it.

I don't think there is = any concentrated full coverage anywhere.

mu'o = mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--047d7bd921b40d81150504c85a42--