Date:  Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:04:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711201804.NAA10853@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: veridicality in English
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1004
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 20 13:04:24 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Robin:
[>8]
> Well, I'm not sure about how far you can take truth-conditional semantics
> (further in Lojban than in English, I imagine).  As I said, I think English
> articles have more to do with discourse than with the truth-value of a
> sentence; thus "a discussion of veridicality is meaningless" with relation
> to "the".

If you reject the validity of a truth-conditional semantics for
English (or even just English articles), then any comparison with
Lojban semantics is pretty meaningless.

That applies not only to my claim that on a truth-conditional
semantics of English, veridicality is a factor in the meaning of
the articles, but also to other people's claim that veridicality
in Lojban gadri makes Lojban special or unusual in comparison
with other languages.

Of course, you could claim that Lojban is special or unusual in
that truth-conditional semantics is valid for it but not for other
lgs, but that would not be particularly interesting, even if it
were a reasonable claim.

--And