From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon Apr 15 18:47:05 1996
Received: from punt.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP
	id AA11383 ; Mon, 15 Apr 96 18:46:57 BST
Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
          id 829347260:29898:1; Fri, 12 Apr 96 23:14:20 BST
Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net
          id aa28799; 12 Apr 96 23:14 +0100
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
   with BSMTP id 4206; Fri, 12 Apr 96 18:11:08 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 0647; Fri, 12 Apr 96 18:10:41 EDT
Date:         Fri, 12 Apr 1996 23:09:37 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      *Re: *old response to And on fuzzy proposals
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Message-ID: <829347243.28799.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Status: R


> >> >At any rate, you are completely mistaken about metalinguistics. They
> >> >cannot override everything. For example, {do jinvi kuau la djan cu
> >> >sei dei/ti jitfa seu gerku} does not mean {you believe that John
> >> >is not a dog}. To say that, you use {na}.
> >> It means "it is false that {You believe that John is a dog}
> >Well - rather, it means "You believe that John is a dog.  What I just
> >said is untrue."  - that gets the meaning better.
> I'll accept the rewording, though I am not sure of the difference.

"it is false that you believe that John is a dog" is true.
"You believe that John is a dog. And what I just said is untrue" is false.

> >Consider {ko jinvi kuau la djan cu sei dei jitfa seu gerku}.  That does
> >not mean "Make it false that you believe that John is a dog" or "It is
> >false that I command you to believe that J is a dog".  It means "Believe
> >J is a dog (- it so happens that you don't believe he is a dog)".
> This is true, but I am not sure of your point.  "ko" has metalinguistic
> effects, though they are built into the word.  "sei" has metalinguistic
> effects.  When you have both present there will undoubtedly be a
> precedence.

The point is that ko pertains to the truth conditional content of the
bridi, and sei does not add to the truth conditional content. It makes
a logical difference whether you impart some bit of info truth conditionally
or metalinguistically.

> >> I do not know whether they are semantically identical - just
> >> indistingushable in English, hence I do not know how to talk about any
> >> potential differences.
> >The trick is to discuss non main clause declarative bridi.  That brings
> >differences out.  Also, {go.i} anaphora:  it picks up {na} but not {sei
> >dei jitfa}.  So {ti na broda i ta go,i} means {... i ta na broda}, while
> >{ti broda sei dei jitfa i ta go,i} means {... i ta broda}.
> And again, go'i is a word with metalinguistic effects.  You have even
> made it clear that it is metalinguistic:  we are "discussing bridi".

What are the metalinguistic effects of {go,i}? I don't see them.
Anyway, the point is that I've shown you ways to discern differences
between metalinguistic and nonmetalinguistic meaning.

> (orthography sidenote:  "go,i" does not devoice the glide and would to
> my ear be almost indistinguishable from "goi,i", and is NOT pronounced
> go'i with a devoiced glide).

<go,i> is an official alternative to <go'i>. It IS pronounced [gohi] with
a devoiced glide.

> >> >> >They (the ones I understand) are of no use.
> >> >> Any comments on the truth or falsity of the currnet bridi or components
> >> >> therof areexactly what we had in mind for metaplingusitics.
> >> >Fair enough. But we are seeking ways to do fuzzy "negation", not
> >> >ways to comment on the truth of the current bridi.
> >> Thus you appear to claim that negation is something other than a comment
> >> on the truth of the current bridi.  I do not see any difference.
> >I hope you will now.  It's important to see the difference, in order to
> >prevent discursive abuse [misuse of discursives, not insulting
> >discussions].
> I don't think I claimed that "na" negation had a *trivial*
> transformation into a sei metalinguistic (unaffected by other features
> of the bridi, especially those that are also metalinguistic in nature),
> merely that such a transformation exists, and that therefore the
> negation is a metalinguistic comment on truth.

Fair enough, but you're still wrong, so far as I can see. You can prove
your point by providing the transformations.

===And