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 m0r500U-00004zC; Wed, 9 Nov 94 01:31 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0809; Wed, 09 Nov 94 01:31:30 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0805; Wed, 9 Nov 1994 01:31:26 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9558; Wed, 9 Nov 1994 00:28:13 +0100 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 15:44:19 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: veridicality trivial? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199411051609.AA25078@nfs1.digex.net> from "Robert J. Chassell" at Nov 5, 94 11:07:29 am Content-Length: 1066 Lines: 29 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.