Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:42:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711140342.WAA01937@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: le/lo X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1731 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 13 22:42:15 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >(a) What you say is valid, but so is an ontology that denies >what you say, whereby the snowflake would merely be a xrula >to a lesser extent than a pansy. Hey we can take fuzzy truth to quite an extent, but there really are limits. ! I can describe a snowflake as a flower, but it is in no way veridically a flower by any *rational* ontology (irrational ones can claim anyt hing they want to). Veridicality among other things allows us to divide the world in to things that are something and things that are not. If two people cannot agree to use the same ontology, then it becomes meaningless. In any event, we have "le" which allows us to describe an object without worr ying about veridicality. In the absence of agreed upon ontologies, I think "le" and kin are the only appropriate gadri. >(b) they contradict universals of pragmatics Tell me about other languages that have "+ veridical" as a feature, and I mightaccept it. That is THE critical feature of "lo" - other features are really offshoots from the choice of impliciy quantifier. I would suspect that veridicality is NOT a feature of language that has historically been governed by pragmatics, as it probably has only been relevant in the highly structured realm of syllogism and other logical discourse. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/" Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.