Received: from mail-lb0-f185.google.com ([209.85.217.185]:48699) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XbbrT-0004EN-3Y for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:00:07 -0700 Received: by mail-lb0-f185.google.com with SMTP id u10sf648295lbd.12 for ; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:59:51 -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=Cd8li6yHnnZqzYE615hTwzuWj7I7/KuBe6NL6/u/TRg=; b=gevbOQQC33YnHWFJv24PBJoZsjDRnYuWGTgGFwp7TW2LjK+M9rbnYoi7aGE2uwdy5G kyd9gAd2Po0iq6TKWpuig1idqWsYn9YKMc09lhA2PJxSUjSg6qJoEUQX7JFWciROGH+p 72AAzgBttFC0uB9iSBlAGBcfeK/Z3wd8iwqypKrc5/C7FCvmHwHJCnRXD8T2QQ3ypoWn aORgfpY3PBM7LR/n5jVegxvv+VShst6Us1HYKyNvSZJ2xGNQP1d/o+r5ycToghDjgfW1 I7tUMmmrSf/4HbQmR8Y2GntWPZIEknZPUjTEeqT2loPG2wnzVBubsz7zuKH3vm+VHNHf 0gDQ== X-Received: by 10.180.108.177 with SMTP id hl17mr37412wib.20.1412715591424; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:59:51 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.83.41 with SMTP id n9ls780916wiy.10.canary; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:59:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.188.52 with SMTP id fx20mr2349036wic.3.1412715590996; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rb5si2121310lbb.0.2014.10.07.13.59.50 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::234; Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id f15so6824387lbj.39 for ; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:59:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.142.33 with SMTP id rt1mr6389631lbb.69.1412715590856; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.25.229 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:59:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5433F201.2020902@gmail.com> References: <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales> <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> <5433F201.2020902@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:59:50 -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::234 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=001a11c36b72f634f10504db7a53 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c36b72f634f10504db7a53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:00 AM, And Rosta wrote: > Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 06/10/2014 23:10: > >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM, And Rosta > and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > 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. >> > > Okay. That answers my question. What's the rationale for your answer (i.e= . > for holding that the lo description is presupposed)? I take "lo broda" to be a referring expression, not a claim, and therefore the veridicality of its description can only be presupposed. I'm not sure what other kind of rationale there might be. Since "lo" is marked neither as definite/indefinite nor as specific/generic, it is useful for identification of its referents that it is at least veridical, This also allows maintaining the original definition of "lo", prior to CLL: "veridic= al descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are) ..." I don't think there is any concentrated full coverage anywhere. >> > > I have seen attempts to define {lo} periphrastically using {zo'e}. Since > afaik Lojban has no words for marking presupposition, any periphrasis > (without the requisite neologistic presupposition-markers) is doomed to > fail. Yes, the usual paraphrase for "lo broda" is "zo'e noi ke'a broda", which changes the presupposition into a side-claim, which is as close as we could make it. But even with that paraphase "lo broda cu brodu" is not equivalent to "zo'e ge broda gi brodu", because "naku lo broda cu brodu" =3D "naku zo'= e noi broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'e na broda .i ta'o ri brodu" is not equivalent = to "naku zo'e ge broda gi brodu" =3D "zo'e ga na broda gi na brodu". 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. --001a11c36b72f634f10504db7a53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:00 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 06/10/2014 23= :10:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>= ; wrote: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 So {lo broda cu brodu} is not equivalent to {zo'e ge brod= a gi brodu}?

I would say they are not equivalent because that it brodas is in one
case presupposed and in the other case asserted.

 Okay. That answers my question. What's the rationale for your answer (i= .e. for holding that the lo description is presupposed)?
<= br>
I take "lo broda" to be a referring expression, not= a claim, and therefore the veridicality of its description can only be pre= supposed. I'm not sure what other kind of rationale there might be. Sin= ce "lo" is marked neither as definite/indefinite nor as specific/= generic, it is useful for identification of its referents that it is at lea= st veridical, This also allows maintaining the original definition of "= ;lo", prior to CLL: =C2=A0"verid= ical descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are) ..."
=
I don't think there is any concentrated full coverage anywhere.

 I have seen attempts to define {lo} periphrastically using {zo'e}. Sinc= e afaik Lojban has no words for marking presupposition, any periphrasis (wi= thout the requisite neologistic presupposition-markers) is doomed to fail.<= /blockquote>

Yes, the usual paraphrase for "lo brod= a" is "zo'e noi ke'a broda", which changes the presu= pposition into a side-claim, which is as close as we could make it. But eve= n with that paraphase "lo broda cu brodu" is not equivalent to &q= uot;zo'e ge broda gi brodu", because "naku lo broda cu brodu&= quot; =3D "naku zo'e noi broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'e n= a broda .i ta'o ri brodu" is not equivalent to "naku zo'e= ge broda gi brodu" =3D "zo'e ga na broda gi na brodu".= =C2=A0

mu'o mi'e xorxes
=C2=A0

--
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.
--001a11c36b72f634f10504db7a53--