From sentto-44114-16038-1032797442-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Mon Sep 23 09:14:10 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n39.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.107]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17tVqX-0003Gy-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:14:05 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-16038-1032797442-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.197] by n39.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Sep 2002 16:10:47 -0000 X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 23 Sep 2002 16:10:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 34641 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 16:10:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Sep 2002 16:10:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 16:10:41 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:38:27 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:11:01 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 To: nessus , lojban 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: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:10:50 +0100 Subject: [lojban] Re: notes on conventional implicature Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1526 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list >>> Lionel Vidal 09/23/02 04:41pm >>> #and: #> Lojban definitely has conventional implicature: #> * some UI #> * "le broda" is equivalent to #> "[unasserted:] da poi ro lu'a ke'a broda .... [asserted:] ro lu'a da" #> However, these are special cases. Other debated cases have been #> resolved against conv-implic. # #I agree, but I would have found more 'natural' for a logical language #to avoid these special cases by having no conv-implic and maybe #some explicit mechanism (special cmavos maybe) to allow it on demand. #Truth value affectations would have been much cleaner. This is exactly my sentiment too. But in a sense the uncontroversial examples, UI and le, are marked -- UI by the selmaho, and as for le, it's the essence of what makes le differe from lo. --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/