Message-Id: <199407312201.AA29246@nfs1.digex.net> Reply-To: ucleaar Date: Sun Jul 31 18:01:29 1994 Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: current cmene project X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sun, 31 Jul 94 00:49:05 D.) <199407310449.AA21267@access3.digex.net> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sun Jul 31 18:01:29 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU 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