Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA20862 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 13 Dec 1994 17:10:46 -0500 Message-Id: <199412132210.AA20862@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4762; Tue, 13 Dec 94 17:01:13 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2176; Tue, 13 Dec 1994 15:26:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 20:17:20 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: reply: (1) veridicality X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: (Your message of Mon, 12 Dec 94 11:48:07 MST.) Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Dec 13 17:11:11 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu 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"!]