From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Tue Sep 23 23:11:18 1997 Message-Id: <199709240411.XAA28744@locke.ccil.org> Date: Tue Sep 23 23:11:18 1997 Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: LE and VOI X-To: And Rosta X-cc: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2089 On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, HACKER G N wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, And Rosta wrote: > > > I'm not sure whether this is grammatical, but I think it may be > > possible to contrast "le da poi" (specific, veridical) with > > "le da voi" (specific, nonveridical). > > I know that there are issues involving sumti quantification where you can > put an article before a pro-sumti, but to my knowledge it has never been > done to express veridicality. Perhaps this will do in a crunch where you > need to express both specificity and veridicality at once. No, I take it back. Assuming that using "le" is grammatical like this, what you would in fact be saying with "le da poi" is "the DESCRIBED something that really is..." People may be able to figure out what you really meant anyway, but the limitation caused by that forced choice between specificity and veridicality is still there. But at least "da voi" by itself does make for non-specificity and non-veridicality, although this again is an attack on our conceptual faculty to know specific things about the universe, because it moves us even further away from that state of affairs. We can't express specificity and veridicality, but we can expres non-specificity and NON-veridicality! Geoff From lojbab@access.digex.net Wed Sep 24 01:58:19 1997 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 01:58:14 -0500 (EST) id BAA05184 for cowan@ccil.org; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 01:43:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 01:43:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199709240543.BAA05184@access2.digex.net> To: cowan@ccil.org Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 346 >JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > >> Could you give a sentence with your definition of na'e as >> a selbri modifier that says something useful? > >No. I retract my arguments, and move to the Jorge/lojbab >camp. I ahven't been keeping up. I thought Jorge disagreed with me, or was that only about to'e and not about na'e? lojbab