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 m0rCcO1-00007FC; Wed, 30 Nov 94 01:55 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0935; Wed, 30 Nov 94 01:55:17 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0933; Wed, 30 Nov 1994 01:55:17 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6363; Wed, 30 Nov 1994 00:51:59 +0100 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 18:57:36 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: veridicality in grammar X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1798 Lines: 44 Bob Chassell says: > 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}. Are you saying that a sentence in Lojban is not grammatical if it's false? The sentence you wrote is meaningful independent of the circumstances in which it is used, so I don't see why it would be called 'not grammatical'. Its meaning depends on the circumstances in as much as the identification of the one named la dgorj depends on the circumstances. Its meaning also depends on what we understand by the predicate 'mlatu' (and also 'viska', of course). Unless we're in an unusual situation (say a logic class, where the teacher draws a Venn diagram with three cats inside and says that this is the set of all cats, then within that universe of discourse, the set of cats has cardinality three), unless the situation is unusual, the set of mlatu has many many members, and the sentence says that something is true about at least one of them, without saying which one. If the claimed relationship doesn't obtain (nice bit of jargon there) then the sentence is false, not ungrammatical. The meaning of {la dgorj ca ca'a viska le mlatu}, on the other hand, depends on what we identify as the referent of {le mlatu}. It is not a claim about all cats, it is a claim about the thing(s) that the speaker is calling {le mlatu}. Both sentences are grammatical, whenever they're used. In some circumstances the claim that they make will be true, in some it will be false. Jorge