From sentto-44114-15926-1032569144-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Sep 20 17:48:14 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n4.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.88]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17sYRQ-0003lU-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:48:12 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15926-1032569144-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Sep 2002 00:45:44 -0000 X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 00:45:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 59915 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 00:45:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 00:45:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-13.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 00:45:43 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-58.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.58]) by mailbox-13.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id CCBDD3D98D for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 02:45:40 +0200 (DST) To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 01:47:20 +0100 Subject: RE: [lojban] Could this be it? (was: I like chocolate) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1414 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Xorxes: > la and cusku di'e > > >I go along with you about {lo'e broda} not entailing > >{da broda}. If {lo'i broda cu no mei}, then no da broda but > >we can still legitimately talk about lo'e broda. > > Agreed. Actually, I think I need to backtrack. If the world is conceptualized in such a way that {lo'e broda cu brode} is true, then under the same conceptualization, {da broda} is perforce true. In the same way, if {la tom brode}, then necessarily {da me la tom}. > >But we may disagree about the other bit. I see no difference between > >{lo'e broda cu klama} and {la tom klama}. Both, I think, entail > >{da klama}, yet both may lack an extension in a given world. > > For me, names must have a referent in the corresponding world. Okay, but for me, {lo'e gerku} has a referent, in 'the corresponding world', which is a world in which there is one dog (which IMO does not exclude This World -- it includes This World to the extent that This World can be conceptualized as containing exactly one dog). > Also, I could not use a name to get the same sense of {lo'e broda}. > I can say {zo tom cmene lo'e pavyseljirna}, which says that "Tom" > is a name of unicorns, but it does not mean that using the name > {la tom} will have the same effect as using the generic NP > {lo'e pavyseljirna} in another sentence. I am inclined to disagree. {zo arktik glico cmene lo'e traji berti}, {zo djeimzbond cmene lo'e skino prenrdjeimzbondu} ("The far north is called 'Arctic'", "James Bond of the JB films is called 'James Bond'") -- I don't see why the lo'e phrases can't be coreferential with {la arktik}, {la djeimzbond}. Likewise {zo xorxes cu cmene lo'e me la xorxes} or {zo xorxes cu cmene lo'e du la xorxes}. > >If we > >say "lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi", I don't see why that shouldn't > >entail "da blabi", within the worlds in which {lo'e pavyseljirna > >cu blabi} or {la tom cu blabi} (where la tom is a or the unicorn) > >is true. > > {la tom cu blabi} does entail {da blabi}, no argument about > that, and of course in worlds with unicorns one could be called > Tom. In words with no unicorns, there can't be a unicorn called > Tom, obviously, but {lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi} can still be true. > Indeed in those worlds {lo'e pavyseljirna cu pavyseljirna} is true, > "unicorns are unicorns", and {da pavyseljirna} is false. Here again we disagree, though perhaps not fundamentally. The way I'm seeing things, two contradictory statements can be simultaneously true of one and the same world, e.g {re da vi djacu}, {ci da vi djacu} -- both could be true of one and the same objective circumstance (e.g. as seen in a photograph), depending on how amounts of water are to be individuated. But the two sentences can't be simultaneously true in one and the same conceptualization of the world. To me, {lo'e broda} conventionally implies (in the Gricean sense -- i.e. it is linguistically encoded, but outside the scope of what is asserted) {pa da ?p/?noi ce'u broda}. --And. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/ySSFAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/