Received: from mail-la0-f55.google.com ([209.85.215.55]:63193)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDNZFNNFVAHRB2WU2OQQKGQE36KOOLI@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1XblrO-0007fE-R5
	for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:40:42 -0700
Received: by mail-la0-f55.google.com with SMTP id hz20sf691976lab.20
        for <lojban-list-archive@lojban.org>; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:40:27 -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=VQtqz/1stKoxRqWn8G7Ug3z4noP4CRpC3VQhKN4gHjQ=;
        b=XyqV10Enw7qKkPwkDP7Ge/t9nILY8Ucb+70ENErRL/d0nvTRmi7NMOwguV6ZIPaJy0
         AJ4J/Z7AHZRp1wPuj19qTU1xC1TbjLzGixqgi0a7oukFXcZArxMGj3BCayMwZ4jzTpcx
         fA4WAbpBY2HRTwf8Mn9Pwc9SD+ROL6uGhZQONpRI9VDsCzsZKEaPc0UYdC2HqwiLmq92
         h3wra1X1ZzaRM8n9upJPbgRyOSrQPhj5J1Ww2z2IrgyLS6+iY/H/yn86cFNZU1QJQ5Rj
         jijMPbcCdwYUftUa4VJuq2+NieLmgW4eNv4F3YRDSwEpHSc6pece7Q6szioYK7KHs/95
         5lBg==
X-Received: by 10.152.37.9 with SMTP id u9mr1637laj.28.1412754027575;
        Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.152.21.135 with SMTP id v7ls17678lae.40.gmail; Wed, 08 Oct
 2014 00:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.112.52.165 with SMTP id u5mr118204lbo.12.1412754026352;
        Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p7si274317wiz.1.2014.10.08.00.40.26
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f;
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id d1so9873708wiv.8
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.180.106.202 with SMTP id gw10mr32232552wib.62.1412754026242;
        Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([95.147.226.63])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id lu10sm10685498wjb.13.2014.10.08.00.40.25
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 08:40:28 +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: tersmu 0.2
References: <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2c5fi5d+1Rc=1eXJEG_1a8QMeGe6Uy5psMYAWqkTO3ciQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales> <CAO7tK2ds0RxZnHoUSodwty5hjWk+6hpKPj_Y8NoVy+paOc44sg@mail.gmail.com> <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> <CAO7tK2eST7Fj3qQa2DKrmfPP8pYQPToCQL7x7v8xWUqAn5FARQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <CAO7tK2fS_pTD3snnSeQ4meDbrBhS_v8RCJvPvbEuLjXDhx-Drw@mail.gmail.com> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <CAO7tK2f_GVeDL5Qukx1k+3wTg5aVcY+z4W6JjB=hF1JGHzwwAw@mail.gmail.com> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> <CAO7tK2fdDnOG5OSU5wJ=MQaDMroy3Ht45WjkMnCKBG1o9ofUTg@mail.gmail.com> <CACf3dPn1uunMicCRD8OgqVxLMSRpjMTjS-kB1Mrk3XMGZCkYcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO7tK2c62t+Q42aEoH16KTfviM527==ZyRboFdp0MbP=E4P6xA@mail.gmail.com> <5433F201.2020902@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2cx8jR+6qh82X7ZSPzQ3doNcvF54s6YLUARMYcXqT090g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2cx8jR+6qh82X7ZSPzQ3doNcvF54s6YLUARMYcXqT090g@mail.gmail.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:c05::22f
 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: -

Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 07/10/2014 21:59:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:00 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:a=
nd.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 06/10/2014 23:10:
>         On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <m=
ailto:and.rosta@gmail.com> <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gm=
ail.com>>> wrote:
>
>              So {lo broda cu brodu} is not equivalent to {zo'e ge broda g=
i 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.

If {lo broda cu brodu} were equivalent to {zo'e ge broda gi brodu}, you cou=
ld still say {lo broda} was a referring expression by virtue of the {zo'e} =
it is equivalent to. Referentiality needn't entail presupposition of the de=
scription. As rationales, I thought you might be arguing that it's better t=
o have different ways to express different meanings rather than merely diff=
erent ways to express the same meaning; or maybe you had discovered logical=
 pitfalls with a nonpresuppositional version of {lo}.

> 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: "veridical descriptor: the
> one(s) that really is(are) ..."

What do you mean by 'identification'? The speaker knows what the referent i=
s, and doesn't need to identify it to themself; and the referents aren't ne=
cessarily identifiable to the addressee.

It's not clear to me -- without knowing any literature on the matter -- tha=
t presupposition can rightly be considered veridical, but I can see why you=
'd think presupposition is at least tantamount to veridicality, and so is a=
ppropriate for the meaning of CLL-defined {lo}.

>     I have seen attempts to define {lo} periphrastically using {zo'e}. Si=
nce 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.

Far better to introduce an experimental cmavo for presupposition than to pu=
t about an incorrect paraphrase.

>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".

It might be -- coherently -- that "lo broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'e ge broda gi=
 brodu", while "na ku lo broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'e ge broda gi na ku brodu"=
, which is what I'd had in mind. That is, the "lo broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'e=
 ge broda gi brodu" equivalence is not a rule for exchanging word-strings b=
ut rather for deriving more basic logical forms from less basic ones.

--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.