From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 2 00:05:43 1997 Message-Id: <199710020505.AAA06065@locke.ccil.org> Date: Thu Oct 2 00:05:43 1997 Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: LE and VOI X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1768 And: >> xy mlatu gi'e xekri > >Isn't {xy} anaphoric? I suppose, yes. >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. {le co'e} works great. I think that {ko'a} means {le co'e} when it is not goied. >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&.teoP, but I don't >want to bother saying this (perhaps it's not relevant to do so). That is not the most normal interpretation for that sentence in English, though. I think I kind of get an idea of what you mean, but then for me the intentionality of "will" gets in the way. I tend to understand your sentence as "there is a book such that I intend to show it to John", then it is false if you show him a different one from the one you intended. But if "will" is only working as a future marker, then I don't see how your truth conditions can work for that sentence. If you change it to past tense: "I showed John a book", I can't get that sentence to be false if you didn't show him the book that you have in mind but another one: to your audience the sentence is true even if you are lying to yourself in your own mind. >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". Yes, that's how it should be, since you're really making the two claims about your referent. I think that ko'a ge ba se jarco mi la djon gi cukta works for that. Jorge