From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Tue Jul 17 10:06:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 17 Jul 2001 17:06:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 50268 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 17:04:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Jul 2001 17:04:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 17:04:58 -0000 Received: from m98-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.98] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15MY2G-0004aG-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:49:25 +0100 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] questions about DOI & cmene Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:04:08 +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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010716233108.00c226a0@127.0.0.1> From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8678 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. > with the la version having the additional information > that I am calling the referent Bear. No!! This is not additional information; it is the only information. > In neither case does the referent > have to actually be a bear, so both are non veridical. > > > "le broda goi ko'a" expresses the bridi "ko'a broda", > > No it doesn't. The two are effectively equivalent, ergo: yes it does.... > but I don't call one a definition of the other. > > Actually it seems to me that "goi ko'a" is more like "noi se cmene zo > ko'a", but I also don't consider that one definitional either. 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". --And.