Date:  Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:53:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801291653.LAA12843@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: bob@rattlesnake.com
Subject:      Re: Presuppositions
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <199801290439.XAA26210@access2.digex.net> (message from Logical
              Language Group on Wed, 28 Jan 1998 23:39:22 -0500 (EST))
X-UIDL: 7d20ed40a306354e6fab0e0883ac51c4
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan 29 12:43:39 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

    > cbogart@QUETZAL.COM:
    >I ate the fish               --- presupposes the fish exists
    >                             --- states that I ate that
    >
    >I drew a fish                --- does not presuppose the fish exists
    >                             --- states that I drew that

    Lojbab:
    These presuppositions sound like what we have been meaning by the word
    "veridical" when defining "lo".

Hmm... how do I `draw a fish'?   First the easy case:

    .i mi ba'o citka lo finpe
    I am in the aftermath of
    eating
    one or more of all the veridical fish
    in the current universe of discourse.

Yes, the fish is presupposed to exist or have existed.

Now the hard case:

    .i mi ba'o pixra finti lo finpe
    I am in the aftermath of
    illustration type-of authoring
    one or more of all the veridical fish
    in the current universe of discourse.

Hmmm...  interesting ... does {lo finpe} refer to a fish or to a
picture of a fish?   Is this utterance meaningful?

Or should I say:

    .i mi ba'o finti lo pixra be lo finpe
    I am in the aftermath of
    authoring
    one or more of all the veridical pictures of
    one or more of all the veridical fish
    in the current universe of discourse.

This utterance presupposes a real drawing of a real fish.
No problem.

How about:

    .i mi ba'o xraci'a lo finpe
    I am in the aftermath of
    drawing
    one or more of all the veridical fish
    in the current universe of discourse.

I cannot decide whether the x2 of {xraci'a}  is what the drawing is
about, in which case this utterance is OK, or whether it is what is
drawn, in which case the utterance should be:

    .i mi ba'o xraci'a lo pixra be lo finpe


Here are the relevant gismu:

* eat,
    x1 eat-s/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2
    /:/
    /=/ citka (cti)

* fish,
    x1 is a fish of species x2 [metaphorical extension to sharks, non-fish
    aquatic vertebrates]
    /:/
    /=/ finpe (fip fi'e)

* picture,
    x1 is a picture/illustration representing/showing x2, made by artist x3
    in medium x4
    /:/ [also (adjective:) x1 is pictorial/illustrative; drawing (=
    xraselci'a), x1 draws x2 (= xraci'a/pirci'a), image (= xratai), photo
    (= kacmyxra), take a photo (= kacmyterxra, kacmyxragau, kacmyxrazu'e);
    sculpture, relief (= blixra)]
    /=/ pixra (pir xra)

* creates (invents),
    x1 invents/creates/composes/authors x2 for function/purpose x3 from
    existing elements/ideas x4
    /:/ [x1 is creative/inventive]
    /=/ finti (fin fi'i)


* inscribes,
    x1 inscribes/writes x2 on display/storage medium x3 with writing
    implement x4; x1 is a scribe
    /:/ [also x3 writing surface]
    /=/ ciska (ci'a)