Message-Id: <m0qUitJ-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 31 Jul 1994 12:08:56 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: current cmene project
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sun, 31 Jul 94 00:49:05 D.)
              <199407310449.AA21267@access3.digex.net>
Content-Length: 2291
Lines: 48

Lojbab writes:
> And writes:
> UC>       [I take this opportunity to emend this to 'People's Republic
> UC>        of China'. Had I been writing in Lojban my usage would have
> UC>        been correct, since in Lojban 'la grg' means 'that which I
> UC>        am calling "grg"'. If, however, I has used a fuhivla whose
> UC>        denotation is the island of Taiwan, then my usage would have
> UC>        been in error, since I was intending to refer to mainland
> UC>        China.]
>
> No.  Only if you mark it with as "lo" are you claiming veridicality, and
> then you are not claiming uniqueness.  If I say "mi klama lo tcadrlondono"
> you may not assume that the referent is the city where you live, since
> the predicate has several referents - I believe there is one in Ontario,
> and I am sure in several states of the US.

I take the point about "lo", but not about "tcadrlondono": this means
whatever the lexicon says it means - it may be defined as meaning
'x such that x is a city called "London"', but equally well it may
be defined as 'x such that x is the city of London, England'. Fuhivla,
like gismu, and unlike cmene, have fixed definitions. [I may be wrong,
of course; since you disagree with me, I probably am.]

> The only real advantage I can see in making fu'ivla for names is

I am not suggesting making fuhivla for names, I am suggesting making
fuhivla for referring to things. I am suggesting, for example, that
there be a fuhivla to fill the gap in the following pattern:

    ______ : Londinian :: brito : British

> UC> Quite right. "ro lohi tcadrbeidjinu" [if this means 'the set of all
> UC> x such that x is a Beijing City'] has one member.
>
> 1) You want piro  - all of the set.
> 2) This is true only if there is indeed only one city in the world with
>     that fu'ivla as its Lojbanization.  I presume that China has a LOT of
>     cities, and possibly there are some duplicates down at the small
>     localities level, if not for this particular name.

I am suggesting that the fuhivla mean 'Pekingese', or 'Peking', that its
meaning be independent of how this or any city is actually named.
This is analogous to gismu: if there were somewhere called 'Britain,
Kansas', this would not be lo brito, just as Mr Reginald Gerku is
not lo gerku.

----
And