Message-Id: <199502250317.TAA15282@netcom15.netcom.com> X-Sender: cbogart@netcom.com Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 20:05:02 -0700 From: cbogart@quetzal.com (Chris Bogart) Subject: Re: Carterian formula (was: Gricean formula?) X-From-Space-Date: Fri Feb 24 22:17:41 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cbogart@quetzal.com Chris Bogart asked: >> Can you come up with a "minimal pair" of sentences that >> might exist in a language, differing only in their use of predicates meaning >> "x1 has a heart" and "x1 has kidneys", *without* relying on dissection, >> organ transplants, unusual species, etc? How about a pair of sentences >> using two predicates whose referent sets are guaranteed to be the same? >> (i.e. "x1 has skin", "x1 has a skin color") John Cowan replied: >Sure, and so can you, but I'm not sure what point you're making. The point is >that such pairs of sentences have the same truth conditions, but they don't >mean the same thing, in any usual sense of "mean". The point I'm trying to make is that if you did come up with such a minimal pair, you'd see that they *do* mean the same thing, in the usual sense of "mean". Under what circumstances would a speaker want to say "bob has-a-heart", except in the situation where disection, surgery, or birth defects are involved? The only other circumstance I can imagine would be in order to indicate that Bob is a member of the subset of animals which has a heart; in which case "bob has-a-kidney" would be synonymous. Part of the problem, perhaps, is that the two predicates you have chosen happen to have pseudo x2 places worked into the gloss -- so they look more different than they really are. Can you think of a hypothetical new gismu for Lojban which has exactly the same referrent set as "klama" (or pick one you like better), but which means something different? I can't, so I would conclude that JC's logic would at least apply to "klama", and by analogy to other gismu. ____ Chris Bogart \ / ftp://ftp.csn.org/cbogart/html/homepage.html Quetzal Consulting \/ cbogart@quetzal.com