Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:00:18 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412060800.AA06876@access1.digex.net>
To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: (1) loi; (2) le v. la
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

veridicality as we have discussed it in Lojban is not a property of bridi,
but a property of sumti

A langauge that does not explicitly mark figurative usage in its sumti has
(or at least in-mind-descriptive usage) is using non-veridical sumti.

If you say "the man hit the ball", to use a less extreme English example,
and "the man" is specific and in-mind, you are not generally claiming that 
you have personally inspected the genitalia and/or chromosome structure to
ensure that the referent of the sumti is indeed a man.  You do not wish that
the truth claim of the sentence be evaluated on the basis of the unintended
implied claim that the referent really IS a man.  If you used a veridical
"the man" there and it turned out that the person was not properly male, then the statement would be either false or meaningless (depending how you choose to
define such a failure of the veridical test).  BUt we want the phrase "the
man" merely to describe for identification-of-the-referent purposes.  I think
that this is true in English as well as for "le [selbri description]" in 
Lojban.

A veridical specific (which may now have been ruled out for "lo" but only 
over my and I think Bob Chassell's misgivings) would require that the
truth of the bridi be contigent on the truth of all veridical sumti.

(pc feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood many long phone-call
lessons from you many years ago)

lojbab