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 m0rCW4V-00007FC; Tue, 29 Nov 94 19:10 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4171; Tue, 29 Nov 94 19:10:42 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4168; Tue, 29 Nov 1994 19:10:37 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1308; Tue, 29 Nov 1994 18:06:57 +0100 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 09:02:56 EST Reply-To: bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sender: Lojban list From: bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU Subject: veridicality in grammar X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2768 Lines: 81 No part of English grammar directly concerns veridicality; a part of Lojban grammar does. This is a fundamental difference between the two languages. I am using `grammatical' here in the sense that fluent speakers of a language will tell you whether an utterance is grammatical. For example, speakers of English will tell you that the following is well formed: Green ideas sleep furiously. They consider the following to be ill formed: *Sleep green furiously ideas. Also, English speakers will tell you the following is ill formed: *Green ideas sleeps furiously. Veridicality is not a criterion for whether English utterances are grammatical. The following is well formed, even if false in the context of the current conversation: Tomorrow, Hannibal will cross the Alps. Lojban is different. The following is a grammatical use of {lo} if and only if the cat seen is `for real' in the context of the current conversation: .i la dgorj ca ca'a viska lo mlatu However, the utterance is not grammatical if the cat is not `for real'. If the cat is not `for real', but is something you are designating as a cat, then the grammatical categorizer is {le}. An English speaker will tell a child or other learner who says *George see a cat. to say instead: George sees a cat. In the singular, the verb `see' requires an `s'. A Lojban speaker will tell a child or other learner who says .i la dgorj ca ca'a viska lo mlatu to say .i la dgorj ca ca'a viska le mlatu when the cat is not `for real' in the context of the communication. In spoken English, you appear to need little, if any, information regarding context to determine whether *George see a cat. is ill formed. (It goes without saying that you need contextual information to determine whether the written expression is well formed, since the written form does not indicate stress or pauses between words. The contextual information is often provided by default presumptions, as in the first example of "*George see a cat.") Regardless of how much context, if any, is required to determine whether an English sentence is well formed, you clearly need to know the context to determine whether {lo} or {le} is correct in a Lojban utterance. After all, in some contexts, unicorns are `for real'; in others, mere fiction. (It will be interesting to find out whether fluent Lojban speakers feel more effort is required of them to categorize between `designated as' and `for real' than English speakers feel is required of them to categorize between `singular' and `plural'.) Robert J. Chassell bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us 25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725