From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:46:42 2010
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: On {lo} and existence
Date: Thu Mar 30 01:47:43 1995
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Mar 30 01:47:43 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <8i5wrqeQtcG.A.EeG.Sv0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

And:
> > I find {da'i} to be a useful cmavo, which modifies
> > the meaning of a predicate, but I don't think it can be used in
> > explaining the meaning of {lo}.
> I gave in on that weeks ago.

Then what are we arguing about?  :)

> I remember being bemused as an undergraduate by: _Snow is white_ is
> true iff snow is white. It took me years to see the point of it. It
> tells you nothing about what's in the mind, but it does in principle
> afford you a way of defining the meaning

Yes, assuming you already know what is the meaning. You are using
English as a metalanguage to talk about a sentence in English. All
very nice, but what are the meanings of "snow" and "white" in the
external sentence? They are still left out for the reader who is
expected to understand them, because they can understand English,
or they wouldn't be reading that in the first place.

> I refer you to a textbook on formal semantics;

I've read a very little bit about it, and all I could understand was
that nobody seems to know what is the meaning of "meaning".

Jorge