Date:  Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:32:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710011532.KAA28282@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: LE and VOI
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2856
Lines: 75

Jorges:
> >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

Isn't {xy} anaphoric?

What I really want to say is something like {le co`e cu
mlatu gi`e xekri} or {le broda cu mlatu gi`e xekri} - I
want to refer to something without giving a description of
it.

> > 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.

That's right.

> >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.

This was why I chose imperatives. It is possible to treat
specifics as existential quantification, so long as the
quantifier is outside the scope of what is asserted/commanded/etc.

Anyway, here's an example of a specific veridical "indefinite":
"I will show John a book". I want this claim to be false if I will
not show John _War & Peace_, even if I do show him _Madame
Bovary_. That is, I want "a book" to refer to W&P, but I don't
want to bother saying this (perhaps it's not relevant to do so).

The only sure way of saying this that I know of is to use:
"le meaningless-brivla cu ge ba se jarco mi la djon gi cukta".

> >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.

See above.

--And