Received: from mail-ee0-f59.google.com ([74.125.83.59]:57869)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDNZFNNFVAHRBNEE3GQQKGQE6YXJECI@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Xc8ku-0003xb-5K
	for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 01:07:28 -0700
Received: by mail-ee0-f59.google.com with SMTP id e53sf83177eek.24
        for <lojban-list-archive@lojban.org>; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 01:07:17 -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=EOk8m9dAZqgA6PyeGYmH/Jwf+CiDhBq7Y7+JVSPqtQg=;
        b=VBlOFsBn4smtcZuDkXQEdd3IrtfyZHTIgn4mH77dwSGP5tMFMGgBs1iTyNUPQmULD6
         lF0h0u/jrlKrazFKhHS7a71jIJtDI+z2yjLjItW89gjUTu+TA/3QGZTvbAWTCcG5hi4q
         qcldOzEVAprxSYV1KOlJXRVlWFiaOXZP04IzeoAQfFgE/cNZ4NDkLOyUvS5BoeuaIQwG
         jxKrt5+ABHETqLbbG+SdFxGdTD13BihxeL3KFoxdZ4Sbomg8reJni1HrqLPjtagEmrtr
         kAder62AI44UDnTkdXzZcS7PatajFpdxNdB9WoceIQtSVt1kDdAj5iVDJ+8FDFDSNFUN
         RPgw==
X-Received: by 10.152.18.137 with SMTP id w9mr68560lad.7.1412842036950;
        Thu, 09 Oct 2014 01:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.152.207.107 with SMTP id lv11ls136300lac.14.gmail; Thu, 09 Oct
 2014 01:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.112.34.147 with SMTP id z19mr126326lbi.16.1412842035793;
        Thu, 09 Oct 2014 01:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u2si685375wiw.0.2014.10.09.01.07.15
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Thu, 09 Oct 2014 01:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e;
Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id cc10so12348101wib.7
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 01:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.180.73.103 with SMTP id k7mr38044035wiv.1.1412842035658;
        Thu, 09 Oct 2014 01:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([95.147.226.63])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q10sm2647500wjq.35.2014.10.09.01.07.13
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Thu, 09 Oct 2014 01:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54364234.2020906@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 09:07:16 +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> <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2ed4RwuWX6C2TragFDE=eqC-7DKY2AC8bMBfDZyHceC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2ed4RwuWX6C2TragFDE=eqC-7DKY2AC8bMBfDZyHceC-Q@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::22e
 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 08/10/2014 23:40:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:40 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:an=
d.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 07/10/2014 21:59:
> I do think the nonpresuppositional version fails
> to capture what I take "lo" to mean by introducing a claim that is
> not there.

But, to repeat my question, why is it that you take this to be the meaning =
of "lo"? I'm seeking to understand your reasoning (not to challenge it or d=
isagree with it).

>         Since "lo" is marked neither as definite/indefinite nor as
>         specific/generic, it is useful for identification of its referent=
s
>         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 refe=
rent is, and doesn't need to identify it to themself; and the referents are=
n't necessarily identifiable to the addressee.
>
> Is "understanding" better than "identification"?

Yes, tho we shd not yet abandon the search for a still better term.
 =20
>     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.

At least don't use "zo'e noi ke'a broda" as a definitional paraphrase (unle=
ss "noi" gets redefined as presuppositional).
 =20
>         But even with that paraphase "lo broda cu brodu"
>         is not equivalent to "zo'e ge broda gi brodu", because "naku lo b=
roda
>         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 br=
oda 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-str=
ings 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.

Which of these do you mean;
(1) Because the negated versions express different propositions, we should =
make it be the case that the noi and ge sentences express different proposi=
tions.
(2) Because the negated versions express different propositions, it follows=
 logically/rationally that the noi and ge sentences express different propo=
sitions.

If (1), I don't follow the reasoning. If (2), I think the reasoning is inco=
rrect. It is perfectly possible for -- due to the workings of whatever rule=
s translate morphophonological forms into logical forms -- the unnegated se=
ntences to express the same proposition and the negated sentences to expres=
s different ones, and indeed that is actually my current understanding of t=
hem. I recognize that if -- contrary to what I have been supposing -- noi h=
as the meaning of English nonrestrictive relatives, then the unnegated vers=
ions do express different propositions (where 'propositions' include illocu=
tionary operators and not just their propositional content).
 =20
> 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.

My palpably deteriorating memory isn't pinging, so even if you recall corre=
ctly, I still don't. I do think that illocutionary operators can themselves=
 be arguments of predicates (e.g. "Is it dinner time yet, for I'm hungry") =
tho, and since I take logical connectives to be predicates it follows that =
in principle I must allow illocutionary operators to be logically connected=
. I'm not sure how this bears on the current discussion, tho.

--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.