Message-Id: <m0qqViu-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 29 Sep 1994 20:20:12 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: any
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2176
Lines: 62

Desmond:
> "And has slaughtered one of his three pigs."
> "Oh!  I hope it wasn't Alfie."
> "No.  It was Boris."
> "That's a pity, Candy is the fattest."
> "I was only kidding.  It was really Candy."
> .......

-  la and pu catra pa le ri ci xarju
-  uu a'o na go'i la alfis
-  na go'i  i ja'a go'i la boris
-  uicu'i i la kandis plana traji
-  zo'o je'unai i ja'a ca'a catra la kandis


> This discourse is about information, not facts.

Or about pigs, rather. It involves exchange of information, for which
it is necessary to know how to deal with facts.

> It makes sense
> independently of the facts, and indeed, since it is all invented, there are
> no associated facts.

There are facts associated. That they are facts only in the imaginary world
where the discourse takes place is a different matter. That we don't know
which are the true facts is also another matter.

The first statement gives information. For the statement to be informative,
the listener has to assume that it is true. What does the statement mean
assuming that it is true? If we don't know the answer to that, then we
don't get any information from it.

> (In case someone is concerned, I'm afraid I don't
> even know which pig was killed.  If any.)

I hope it was Candy!

> Even if there were facts, the discourse would still be about information.
> The truth of the matter is external to the discourse.  You may choose to
> believe the first speaker in the dialogue, or not, but to be sure you will
> have to visit the pigpen.

I agree, but what do you mean by believing the first speaker? What do you
believe when you believe it? You need to know what the sentence means when
it is assumed to be true.

> lojbab:
> >Staements about non-0existent things are meaningless (they may be defined
> >as false because they are meaningless, but this is definitional).
> >
> "Well if it was Candy, we're in for a feast."
>
> Meaningless?  False?

I don't agree that statements about non-existing things are meaningless,
but I don't think your example is what lojbab meant. In the universe of
that discourse, Candy is an existing pig.

-  i ja'a go'i la kandis inaja ma'a pu'o citka salci la kandis

Jorge