From nessus@free.fr Mon Sep 23 08:30:21 2002
Return-Path: <nessus@free.fr>
X-Sender: nessus@free.fr
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 23 Sep 2002 15:30:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 57714 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 15:30:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Sep 2002 15:30:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.233)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 15:30:21 -0000
Received: from mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.61) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007)
        id 3D760D7C00AE1A34 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:30:20 +0200
Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (80.9.201.133) by mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007)
        id 3D8011E600672693 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:30:20 +0200
Message-ID: <005201c26317$dd330060$dc9bf8c1@ftiq2awxk6>
To: "lojban" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <sd8f2217.006@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [lojban] notes on conventional implicature
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:41:56 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
From: "Lionel Vidal" <nessus@free.fr>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341
X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16008

and:
> Lojban definitely has conventional implicature:
> * some UI
> * "le broda" is equivalent to
>       "[unasserted:] da poi ro lu'a ke'a broda .... [asserted:] ro lu'a
da"
> However, these are special cases. Other debated cases have been
> resolved against conv-implic.

I agree, but I would have found more 'natural' for a logical language
to avoid these special cases by having no conv-implic and maybe
some explicit mechanism (special cmavos maybe) to allow it on demand.
Truth value affectations would have been much cleaner.

pc:
>So the point here is that uttering a sentence with {lo INNER broda} in
it --
>even if INNER is implicit -- commits you to there being INNER broda.
>If there are not, then the whole is meaningless, {na'i}-false -- and so is
its denial.
> Negations and negation boundaries do not affect this inner value.  We do
not
>say that the negation of {lo broda cu brode}, {lo brode na brode} is going
> to result in {ro lo me'iro brode naku brode} when we move the negation
through,
> but just {ro lo broda naku brode} where {lo broda} is still implictly {lo
ro broda}

But to be consistent, this should also be true in when INNER actually set
the cardinality of the underlying subset of broda, as in{lo ci broda cu
brode},
which I would read as {ge lo'i broda cu ci mei gi lo broda cu brode},
and has such is indeed affected by negation boundaries. Or do you consider
than this cardinality is never really asserted, but belongs to {na'i}
domain,
i.e. be the same kind of presupposed implications, despite being explicitly
stated?

mu'omi'e lioNEL