Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 20:17:20 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: reply: (1) veridicality
In-reply-to: (Your message of Mon, 12 Dec 94 11:48:07 MST.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HKMBWPP1PC0006CB@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 818
Lines: 22

Chris:
> If "lo" has no other use but as a
> veridiciality particle, I just don't think people would bother to use it if
> they didn't want to be literal.  (the hole in this argument may be that
> since the quantifiers are different, they'll ignore veridiciality and choose
> based on the quantifiers)
 
Most of the UIs are like this, I suspect. Only strong irony would lead
us to use them nonliterally (& arguably, if irony is a form of quotation
then irony is not necessarily nonliteral).
 
But "lo" does have a use other than as a veridicality particle.
"lo broda" = "da poi broda", i.e. existential quantification,
while "le broda" doesn't - "le broda" is a reference to a constant,
not toa bound variable.
 
---
And
 
[p.s. It was a rare pleasure for me to receive a message saying
"I basically agree with you"!]