Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r3rFQ-00005bC; Sat, 5 Nov 94 21:58 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9246; Sat, 05 Nov 94 21:58:11 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9243; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 21:58:11 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5067; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 20:55:04 +0100 Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 15:00:18 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: veridicality trivial? To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 2079 Lines: 70 la'o gy Bob Chassell gy cusku di'e > jorge@phyast.pitt.edu cuska di'e > > > In Lojban, an imperative is true iff the command is carried out. > Is that true? I thought imperatives didn't have truth values. > > This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Loglan. Well, it wouldn't be my first :) > *Every* predication > is considered true or false. This is fundamental to the language. Maybe I wouldn't call a command (or a question for that matter) a predication then. I don't see what purpose does it serve to say that they have a truth value. > In a context where `the' is the appropriate translation for {lo}: > > ko ciska lo plipe > > Means "make it be true that `you eat the apple'" Ok, I'll think of it as {ko citka lo pa plise} so that we fully agree. :) > So the question is, is the following utterance true? > > do ciska lo plipe > > If you do not eat the apple, it is false. It can only be true if you > do eat the apple. We agree up to here. > Hence, the imperative is true if and only if the > command is carried out. Hence? How does this follow? I don't mind calling it a true command, but does that have any effect on anything? > jorge@phyast.pitt.edu cuska di'e > > My point of view is this: > > Saying that {lo} is veridical is almost a triviality. Because of the > fact that it is non-specific, it needs to be veridical or we lose any > connection with meaning. > > This is why {lo} may be specific; I'm lost again. I said nonspecific ==> veridical. How does this explain that {lo} may be specific? > {le} may be non-specific. Since its quantifier is {ro}, it is hard to see how. > Veridicality is an indicator of, i.e., a guide towards and away from, > specificity (and definiteness). This would be true (at least towards definiteness) if both {le} and {lo} had quantifier {ro}. Then veridicality would make a finer distinction. Since {su'o} makes {lo} grossly different from {le}, any distinction that veridicality could make is practically irrelevant. > It all fits together as is. It certainly does. :) Jorge