Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 20:34:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711040134.UAA15795@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: le/lo X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199711021450.HAA21655@indra.com> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 906 Lines: 18 On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM wrote: > you are misleading yourself and others when you use > `that which I describe as'. It appears to me you more likely mean > `that which really is'. I take le's being non-veridicial, to mean that it's a description which evokes its reference in the human mind, rather than a logical claim about the referrent. Descriptions are sometimes veridicial, sometimes near-veridicial, sometimes metaphorical, but never random, except in the speech of lunatics and misunderstood poets. The fact that "cat" doesn't veridicially describe a canis familiaris doesn't automatically mean that {le} applies -- if that were the case, {le} would simply be a particle indicating that random irrelevant words follow. The {le} description has to evoke the referrent in the listener's mind, or it is non-communicative and therefore useless. Veridicially yours, Chris