From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon Jun 26 00:23:22 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3589 ; Mon, 26 Jun 95 00:23:16 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sat, 24 Jun 95 00:04:45 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa11975; 24 Jun 95 1:04 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5804; Fri, 23 Jun 95 20:02:27 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7837; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 20:02:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 20:06:22 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: Long reply to Lojbab's splurge. X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506240104.aa11975@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R And: > It should be obvious what Lojbab & I meant. Can you define {zoe} in > {zoe broda} as not only {da voi broda} but also as {da poi broda}? > Or {da voi coe geu noi broda}. What would be the point? Does {da poi broda cu broda} say anything more than just {da broda}? {zo'e} is not just {da poi broda}, or {da voi broda}, it is usually much more specific than that. {zo'e broda} entails {da broda}, but it entails much more. > > What would it mean to say it is veridical? It has a referent that is > > obvious from context. There is nothing for it to be veridical about. > Its membership in the tersui. If {zo'e klama} is true, then the referent of {zo'e} does klama. But that is too obvious, so I guess there must be something I'm still misssing. Veridicality concerns descriptions, and we have no descriptions here. > > {zo'e klama} means that the obvious referent goes. > This is a case where usage has already superseded the official > description. {zoe klama} means > gonai > that something really does klama and that the identity of this > something *is as obvious to the addressee as it is to the speaker* > (often the referent is not in the least obvious (typically for > obscure tersui like "under conditions" and "by standard"); consider > the recent {ci nanmu cu pencu ci gerku} discussion - the identity > of the x2 of gerku is not in the least obvious, but it is mutually > apparent to us interlocutors that there is an x2 and that its identity > is irrelevant) > gi > that {da klama} is true and that it is obvious what phrase could > replace {zoe} (either {da}, or {lo coe}, or whatever). Why do you say that usage superseded the official description? I think the description is "obvious or irrelevant", which seems to fit your description well. > Is there any x such that you see a contrast between x and the whole of > x? In English? Or do you mean if I see any contrast between {ta} and {piro ta} in Lojban? I don't, other than emphasis. > Are {mi prami ti} and {mi prami pi ro ti} necessarily synonymous? I don't see any difference, I just see the {piro} as totally redundant there, and so maybe being used to make the {ti} bigger. (Something like "these" instead of "this".) But if {ti} has been already determined to have the same referent, then I don't see the difference. > > If you want to add whether there are components that you like > > or not, you may do so. To like something, do you have to like > > each component, or most components, or just the general effect > > they produce? That's a matter of the meaning of "like", independent > > of masses. > Exactly. That's why I don't want to be obliged to make explicit whether > I like the entirety of the bookage. What matters is that overall I like it. And that is exactly what liking it whole means. Liking {piro lei cukta} does not mean liking each component. Components are not even considered for the liking. They are only mentioned to determine the object that is to be liked. > "Do you like the book" and "Do you like all of the book" can receive > different answers. In English, I agree. Because "Do you like all of the book" has the connotation of asking about whether you like each part of the book. But that is not the case for {piro}, in my opinion. "Do you like all of the book" would be better translated as {xu do nelci ro lu'a le selcku}, rather than {xu do nelci piro le selcku}, which is the same as {xu do nelci le selcku}. Jorge