Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:43:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711140343.WAA02159@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: le/lo X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2077 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 13 22:43:33 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Lojbab: > >(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 anything they > want to). Veridicality among other things allows us to divide the world into > 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 worrying about > veridicality. > > In the absence of agreed upon ontologies, I think "le" and kin are the only > appropriate gadri. I of course see what you are saying, but I will explain further the alternative view. Nothing in this world is a geometrically perfect square. Everything in this world is squarish to a greater or lesser extent. When we describe X *veridically* as a square, we mean that in the context X is sufficiently squarish to count as a square. Change the context (e.g. from street layout to precision engineering) and it might not be sufficiently squarish to count as a square. In other words, the boundaries of categories are not intrinsic, but rather are assumed according to context and the needs of communication. In the right context, a snowflake might be sufficiently flowery to count veridically as a flower. To repeat what I said in an earlier point, I agree with the ontology I've just described, but I also agree with your ontology: I think the two coexist, and that evidence from language use confirms this. > >(b) they contradict universals of pragmatics > > Tell me about other languages that have "+ veridical" as a feature, and I > mightaccept it. Apart from English, you mean? English, I believe, has a veridicality feature. "a" is +veridical and "the" is -veridical. I would expect other western European lgs to be similar. --And