From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Tue Jul 17 19:27:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 18 Jul 2001 02:27:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 95998 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2001 02:27:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Jul 2001 02:27:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Jul 2001 02:27:39 -0000 Received: from m65-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.65] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15Mgon-0000vC-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:12:05 +0100 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] questions about DOI & cmene Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:26:49 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010717140704.00c326c0@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8702 Lojbab: > At 06:04 PM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > >Lojbab: > > > At 03:32 AM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > >[...] > > > >I'm open to correction, but I believe veridicality and > nonveridicality are > > > >properties of descriptions. LE sumti and LO sumti are descriptions. LA > > > >sumti are not descriptions. > > > > > > LA + [description] is a description just as much as LE + [description] > > is a > > > description, except that we are specifically using the description for > > > naming purposes. > > > >AFAI can see, it is a description in neither the technical sense of logic/ > >linguistic philosophy, nor the everyday sense. At any rate, I meant > >'descriptions' in the technical sense of referential expressions that > >involve a propositional description of the referent. (As I said earlier, > >I remain corrigible.) > > > > > But le cribe and la cribe both are indicating a referent using the > > > description "bear" > > > >This is simply not true for la cribe. La cribe does not describe; it > >merely names. > > le cribe doesn't necessarily describe either, since it is > non-veridical. Bob, for gletu's sake, it describes nonveridically. It describes X as Y without claiming that X is Y. > le nanmu need not be male or human, nor even to seem male > or human, so long as the listener can identify the reference from the > description. I don't much see the difference between this and "naming" > except that the NORM with a le description is somewhat closer to being a > veridical description than is the norm for a la description. I think it is beyond my powers to make you see the difference. Yes, it is true that "le nanmu" and "la nanmu" can in some discourse contexts be communicatively near-equivalents. But to understand the differences you need to look at the domain where they are different, namely in logicosemantic form. > >I'm not making a point about "goi ko'a". I mean to make the point > >that where X is the referent of "le broda", "le broda" expresses > >the bridi "X broda". This is not the case for "la broda". > > But since it is non-veridical, it does not actually do so, because > expressing the bridi in Lojban claims it as being true, which is precisely > what "le" descriptions do NOT do. Look, it's not the case that expressing a bridi in Lojban claims it as being true: I mean, counterexamples are hardly difficult to think of -- try "jitfa fa le du'u broda". (It's not even the case that expressing a jufra in Lojban claims it as being true, though on this latter point I would expect a bit of dissent.) "le broda" is truth-conditionally equivalent to "ko'a voi broda fa ke'a". "broda fa ke'a" is a bridi. Ergo "le broda" expresses a bridi. oi ro'e i'u iu ro'i --And.