Message-Id: <199710010250.VAA03078@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Date: Tue Sep 30 21:50:53 1997
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: LE and VOI
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2268
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Sep 30 21:50:53 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

And:
>{lo mlatu cu xekri} can be rephrased as {da mlatu gi`e xekri}:
>it makes no difference whether {mlatu} is in the sumti tail
>or is the brivla.

Absolutely.

> (It does make a diff when there's universal
>quantification.)

{ro mlatu cu xekri} can be rephrased as {roda mlatu nagi'a xekri}.
Everything, if it's a cat then it's black.

>Now if one wishes to refer to a specific entity, X, and one
>wants to say that X is a cat and X is black, how do you say
>it?

    xy mlatu gi'e xekri

> Neither {le mlatu cu xekri} nor {le xekri cu mlatu}
>do the job, because of the nonveridicality factor.

Right. You seem to want to use the same word both to do
the reference and the claim. {le mlatu} is just a reference,
it doesn't make a claim.

>As another example, suppose I want you to read a certain book,
>though I'm not sure if you know which one it is.
>What do I say? Both {ko cilre le cukta} and {le se cilre be
>ko cu cukta} are both subject to interference from nonveridicality.

[cilre=learn, tcidu=read]

 Do you mean something like "you should read a book I saw the
other day in the book-store"? I see why you would want veridicality
there. But the problem seems to come from the existential
quantification being needed outside of the "should" (or of the "ko").

        da poi cukta gi'e se viska mi bu'u le ckuzai za'u ko da tcidu
        There's a book which I saw at the bookstore such that
         I entreat you to read it.

Is that how the scope of ko works? In any case, without the imperative
there's no problem. For example:

        mi jarco lo cukta noi se viska mi bu'u le ckuzai ku'o la djan
        I showed John a book I saw at the bookstore.

What would be an example, without imperatives or other scope
interferences, of a specific reference that requires veridicality?
All the examples I can think of can be understood as lo-things
with outside scope.

 >I wonder whether we are at cross-purposes over terminology.
>You seem to have misunderstood me, and though I am easily
>misunderstandable, you are usually the last person to do so.

It may well be. Could you give a sample sentence where
veridicality would be required for a specific reference?
I prefer examples rather than (or in addition to) abstract
definitions.

co'o mi'e xorxes