Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:17:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801301617.LAA29533@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Presuppositions X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 9759add32cb4161af140398aad259e1c X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jan 30 11:23:02 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - [I'm still massively behind with mail. Apologies if I've said stuff I've not yet come across in unread mail.] Lojbab to Chris: > These presuppositions sound like what we have been meaning by the word > "veridical" when defining "lo". The use of lo does make explicit a > presupposition that the referent ahs the indicated property. But "le" > descriptions do not, and djuno should work with non-verdicials as well. I agree with Chris about presuppositions. Logically, the way I think they should be handled is as predications OUTSIDE the scope of the illocutionary force of the sentence. For example, "She wonders why he left her" would be: He left her, and I ASSERT THAT she wonders what the reason for that is. This is precisely what veridical poi and lo do NOT involve, but it *is* what nonveridical voi and le involve. Stuff in a voi clause or in a le sumti is not *asserted* by the speaker. However, while it is generally though not uncontroversially held that the complement of _know_ is presupposed to be true, I am actually opposed to this for Lojban. I think "ko`a djuno ko`e" should mean: A I ASSERT THAT ko`a justifiably believes ko`e (about x3, with justification x4) and ko`e is true --which does not *presuppose* the truth of x2-- rather than B ko`e is true and I ASSERT THAT ko`a justifiably believes ko`e (about x3, with justification x4) The difference would show up in negation. I think "ko`a na djuno ko`e" should mean A' I ASSERT THAT it is not the case that ko`a justifiably believes ko`e (about x3, with justification x4) and ko`e is true rather than B' ko`e is true and I ASSERT THAT it is not the case that ko`a justifiably believes ko`e (about x3, with justification x4) (B' is the meaning of English "X does not know that Y" - unless the "not" is metalinguistic negation.) The reason I favour the non-presuppositional version is that I think the presuppositional one but be unnecessarily (and therefore mabla) glico, and more generally any presuppositions, since they behave in a special way logically, should be *explicitly* flagged (as they are by voi & le). --And