Received: from mail-wi0-f189.google.com ([209.85.212.189]:53556) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XbzuD-0008KN-AW for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:40:29 -0700 Received: by mail-wi0-f189.google.com with SMTP id ex7sf24415wid.26 for ; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:40:18 -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=dGC8k2ITDYFKpXF/t3cB2XurjAcA27CKTLIxT98AJcI=; b=AO45kogD3iUjaH9pRBtf23cIAjBRXu5QT6C2SyTvC/TVkD0x2hVS8Em1H4V+3/Qlyg 4xApgbPz2c+M5UI6mtUBOqImH7PhScPg1zD2OWujSMizL/nqD0E5nufbfW08MJ5ow2MG 32yOTx1A235effukKCSriQekdUH3gMsXswlT/RbjjLN3SjaYtLKBLpfJmccAmlG1miJj 9GChAshEux8fB25Vb7EKEbofikVglpQfRAR35jj1CKXPmS63GaGx4HzB2WBM2n8lRyyW KrqYXO8OVMxc1Vu/sD2syMs4wwtnrq+55iD8gjt5rWGjbKa1z1b2LMlfCvlGEQDiA/gS 30YA== X-Received: by 10.152.2.39 with SMTP id 7mr170836lar.5.1412808018380; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:40:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.206.103 with SMTP id ln7ls101716lac.36.gmail; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:40:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.4.4 with SMTP id g4mr1997398lag.2.1412808017073; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id us10si220984lbc.1.2014.10.08.15.40.17 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a; Received: by mail-lb0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id u10so54874lbd.29 for ; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:40:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.153.4.11 with SMTP id ca11mr14470691lad.24.1412808016995; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.61.176 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:40:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5434EA6C.9090507@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> <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:40:16 -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::22a 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=001a11342f16fd29fd0504f0fffb X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11342f16fd29fd0504f0fffb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:40 AM, And Rosta wrote: > Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 07/10/2014 21:59: > >> >> 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 > could 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 description. As rationales, I thought you might be arguing that it's > better to have different ways to express different meanings rather than > merely different ways to express the same meaning; or maybe you had > discovered logical pitfalls with a nonpresuppositional version of {lo}. I don't object to having different ways to express the same meaning (quite the opposite, I think it's generally a good thing to find those equivalences). I do think the nonpresuppositional version fails to capture what I take "lo" to mean by introducing a claim that is not there. > 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 > is, and doesn't need to identify it to themself; and the referents aren't > necessarily identifiable to the addressee. > Is "understanding" better than "identification"? > 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 > put about an incorrect paraphrase. It would be a cmavo with very limited use though, mostly just in linguistic discussions rather than ordinary discourse. Maybe it can be covered with a sei-clause, once we figure out exacly how these clauses work. > 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 but > rather for deriving more basic logical forms from less basic ones. I think the sentence "zo'e noi broda cu brodu" and the sentence "zo'e ge broda gi brodu" don't express the same proposition, because the result of negating each of them results in sentences that express different propositions. Given a referent for "zo'e", the second sentence could express a false proposition while the first sentence expresses a true proposition along with a false side-proposition. This reminds me that, if I recall correctly, we had different views when working on Xorban on whether it makes sense for two sentences with different illocutionary force to be logically connected. For me logical connection only applies to bare propositions, and not to propositions-in-use. 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. --001a11342f16fd29fd0504f0fffb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:40 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 07/10/2014 21:= 59:

I take "lo broda" to be a referring expression, not a claim, and<= br> 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= could still say {lo broda} was a referring expression by virtue of the {zo= 'e} it is equivalent to. Referentiality needn't entail presuppositi= on of the description. As rationales, I thought you might be arguing that i= t's better to have different ways to express different meanings rather = than merely different ways to express the same meaning; or maybe you had di= scovered logical pitfalls with a nonpresuppositional version of {lo}.

I don't object to having different ways to e= xpress the same meaning (quite the opposite, I think it's generally a g= ood thing to find those equivalences). I do think the nonpresuppositional v= ersion fails to capture what I take "lo" to mean by introducing a= claim that is not there.

=C2=A0
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 descri= ptor: the
one(s) that really is(are) ..."

 What do you mean by 'identification'? The speaker knows what the re= ferent is, and doesn't need to identify it to themself; and the referen= ts aren't necessarily identifiable to the addressee.

Is "understanding" better than "identifica= tion"?=C2=A0
=C2=A0
Y= es, the usual paraphrase for "lo broda" is "zo'e noi ke&= #39;a broda",
=C2=A0which changes the presupposition i= nto 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.

It would b= e a cmavo with very limited use though, mostly just in linguistic discussio= ns rather than ordinary discourse. Maybe it can be covered with a sei-claus= e, once we figure out exacly how these clauses work.

=C2=A0
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 "z= o'e na broda .i ta'o
ri brodu" is not equivalent to "naku zo'e ge broda gi brodu&q= uot; =3D "zo'e
ga na broda gi na brodu".

 It might be -- coherently -- that "lo broda cu brodu" =3D "z= o'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 = but rather for deriving more basic logical forms from less basic ones.

I think the sentence "zo'e noi broda c= u brodu" and the sentence "zo'e ge broda gi brodu" don&#= 39;t express the same proposition, because the result of negating each of t= hem results in sentences that express different propositions. Given a refer= ent for "zo'e", the second sentence could express a false pro= position while the first sentence expresses a true proposition along with a= false side-proposition.

This reminds me that, if = I recall correctly, we had different views when working on Xorban on whethe= r it makes sense for two sentences with different illocutionary force to be= logically connected. For me logical connection only applies to bare propos= itions, and not to propositions-in-use.
=C2=A0
mu&#= 39;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.
--001a11342f16fd29fd0504f0fffb--