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 m0rEaEv-000083C; Mon, 5 Dec 94 12:01 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3779; Sun, 04 Dec 94 23:31:36 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3776; Sun, 4 Dec 1994 23:31:36 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4431; Sun, 4 Dec 1994 22:28:20 +0100 Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 16:30:20 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: (1) loi; (2) le v. la To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 558 Lines: 12 >Perhaps I am biased by English, since, so far as I am aware, everything >in English is +veridical. Consequently I may lack the appropriate >intuitions about -veridical. English is certainly NOT veridical. Among other things, we use metonymy heavily, and metonymy is inconsistent with veridicality. "The White House announced a new policy last night." Houses do not announce. And is the policy really "new"? Then there is the classic JCB example of ""le" "That man is really a woman". "That man" cannot be veridical if the statement is true. lojbab