From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199411082044.AA12072@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: veridicality trivial? Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 15:44:19 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199411051609.AA25078@nfs1.digex.net> from "Robert J. Chassell" at Nov 5, 94 11:07:29 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1045 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 8 15:44:45 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab la bob. cusku di'e > ko ciska lo plipe > > Means "make it be true that `you eat the apple'" > > 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. Hence, the imperative is true if and only if the > command is carried out. Neglecting the the/a distinction, this is indeed the rationale for saying that an imperative is true if obeyed and false if not. We project the truth value of the underlying sentence up to the imperative. > This is why {lo} may be specific; {le} may be non-specific. It doesn't seem to be settled whether "lo" is specific, but "le" can't be non-specific; "le" means "the one(s) I have in mind" and I have to have something in mind, which is the definition of +specific. The listener may or may not be able to identify the object without asking me, hence "le" can be +definite or -definite. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.