From cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson Mon Aug 12 19:47:08 1991 Return-Path: From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Date: Mon Aug 12 19:47:08 1991 Message-Id: <9108122116.AA06704@relay2.UU.NET> To: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk Cc: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com In-Reply-To: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk's message of Mon, 12 Aug 91 13:19:30 BST <13974.9108121219@sys.uea.ac.uk> Subject: "Could you please..." "Yes" Status: RO >From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk >Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 13:19:30 BST >steffan%pro-angmar@com.alfalfa (Steven Mesnick) writes: >>So in Lojban, the answer to >>"Do you know what time it is" would have to be "Yes" or "No", right? >Why? The listener can give whatever answer he likes. He is not bound by >the literal meaning of the speaker's question. >For that matter, in Loglan (I dont know if this is still the case in Lojban) >the speaker's meaning is, fundamentally, whatever the speaker intends to >mean, regardless of the actual words he uses. So there's nothing wrong with >asking "Do you know what time it is" when you want to know the time. Yes and no, as I see it. Certainly, the response depends solely on the responder, who can say absolutely anything. A reasonable assumption on the part of the listener would probably be that the asker wanted to know the time, not whether or not the listener knew it, and thus give the time as the answer. But, note that that reading is somewhat culturally- and contextually-centered. If I came into your office and said, "Make sure you're outside at 4:30. Do you know the time?" (meaning "do you have some means of telling time (e.g. a watch), so that you'll know when to come out?"), the "reasonable" answer (just as "illogical") would be "yes." BTW, as I understand it, Lojban has a similar view regarding what you say vs. what you mean, only there are more choices. If you state a predication, you assert that predication to be true, and are in error if it is not. However, when you use a predication with an "article," to make a "noun" (all loosely speaking. I really mean "to make an argument (for another predication)") -- as in "le cmene" (the name(s)), there's a certain looseness. If you use "le" as the "article," you really mean, "that which I describe as...", and so it can be anything. So if I say, "le cukta cu blanu" (the book is blue), and the referent of "le cukta" (the book) really isn't a book, but is a table, then my sentence is still true, PROVIDED that the table really is blue (i.e. the predication still holds). However, if I use "lo" as the article, my predication includes a claim about the thing referred to there as well. So "lo cukta cu blanu" would be false unless the thing referred to by "lo cukta" really was a book (and was blue, of course). Someone correct me if I misunderstood the veridicality of lo, please. ~mark