Message-Id: <sd9314ff.035@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:08:55 +0100
To: lojban <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
From: And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>
Content-Length: 8222
Lines: 204

pc:
#a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:
#<<
#> {lo ro broda cu brode} means something like "some broda is brode
#> and the cardinality of the set of broda is the cardinality of the
#> set of broda" -- I can't think of a better way of putting it,
#> unfortunately. The Lojban is not tautologous like my English version,
#> but it is as vacuously uninformative. Maybe "some broda is brode
#> and lo'i broda has a cardinality" might be better.
#>=20
#> So in that case, {lo ro broda na brode} means "it is not the case
#> that both some broda is brode and the cardinality of the set of
#> broda is the cardinality of the set of broda (or, alternatively,
#> lo'i broda has cardinality". Since it obviously is the case that the=20
#> cardinality
#> of lo'i broda is the cardinality of lo'i broda -- or that
#> lo'i broda has a cardinality -- the inevitable inference is that
#> it is not the case that some broda is brode.
#>>
#That is, of course, interpretation.  What is said is that the cardinality =
is=20
#ro, just another number.=20=20

But ro functions here as a cardinal number and means "the number equal
to the cardinality of lo'i broda". As a cardinality indicator, it's hard to=
 see
ro as anything other than a dummy filler; it is utterly uninformative.

#So, if negation is going to affect that, it changes it to {me'iro} or some=
=20
#other version of {na'e ro}.=20=20

But the claim made by the cardinality indicator -- lo'i broda cu PA mei --
is always linked by logical AND to some other proposition, and its
the conjunction that gets negated. So {lo ro broda na brode} means
{ga lo'i broda na ro mei gi su'o broda na brode}. Now if {lo'i broda
na ro mei}, then indeed ro would change to some version of na'e
ro. But that would be so nonsensical that the only plausible
interpretation of {ga lo'i broda na ro mei gi su'o broda na brode}
is as equivalent to {su'o broda na brode}.

#Now, that may in the end=20
#give an equally contradictory component of some compound, if that is how i=
t=20
#develops, and tha component may drop out to give just the basic negative,=
=20
#without any component about cardinality.  But what then justifies adding b=
ack=20
i#n a cardinality component, namely, the one jut dropped out.  I suppose th=
at=20
#it come back in because it is a tautology (why the negation dropped out). =
=20
#Well, at least this coheres so far, but I await a case where {lo PA broda}=
=20
#negated turns up as {lo na'e PA broda}.  (As you point out later, this may=
 be=20
#a long wait because no one ever uses {lo PA broda}.)

The three Graces, the seven seas, the 51 states of the USA -- those are
equivalent to (ro) lo PA broda.

#<<
#Firstly, but less importantly, 'definite descriptions' -- closely
#comparable to Lojban le -- are fairly standard exx of presupposition,
#I think.
#>>
#You mean as a way to dodge the Russell cases.=20=20

Yes. Bald French kings etc.

#Probably, although I=20
#personally go with the explicit formats, the eight and ninety ways remaini=
ng=20
#to do descriptions  -- all of which are also right.
#
#<<
#Second, the essence of le is specificity, with nonveridicality something
#of a by-product. My personal view is that logically specificity
#involves existential quantification outside the scope of the operator
#that carries illocutionary force (e.g. assertive force). If the
#sumti tail is held to also be outside the scope of the illocutionary
#operator, then nonveridicality is an automatic consequence. It is
#also my personal view that the essence of presupposition/conventional
#implicature that it is outside the scope of the illocutionary
#operator. Therefore I see specificity as "presuppositional existential
#quantification".
#>>
#Both of these theories of yours are interesting and need some mulling (my=
=20
#first instinct is to like it a lot).  But I don't see that the fact that y=
ou=20
#have these theories (even if they turn out to be correct -- i.e., pick of =
the=20
l#itter) requires us to use them to explain the present case, which isn't=20
#directly about that. But, of course, if specificity is a pre-illocution=20
#quantifier, then INNER, which is that quantifier, is presuppositional.

Hold on: my theory/claims are:

* Specificity is a pre-illocution quantifier. {le} =3D "pre-illocution-{lo}=
".

* Everything following {le} is preillocutionary/presuppositional (i.e. the
INNER and the rest of the sumti tail).

* Everything following {lo} is not preillocutionary/presuppositional (i.e.=
=20
neither the INNER nor the rest of the sumti tail).

#<<
#Finally, I too don't recall it ever having been established that
#the inner cardinality indicator is nonveridical (=3Dsubjectively
#defined), but I think that is the more consistent position to take.
#>>
#So, when I say {le ci mlatu} meaning those four dogs -- or even those four=
=20
#cats -- I did not misspeak myself, since I know what I mean -- but can't=20
#count -- and you know what I mean, even if you can count?  Given the histo=
ry=20
#of {le}, that seems plausible -- and thoroughly disastrous.=20=20

That's right, except it's not disastrous -- it's desirable. I want to provi=
de
info within the le sumti to help you identify the referent set, but so long
as it aids with identification I don't want to *claim* that info is true.
E.g. I want to say that those people -- those in the group that looks,
from where we're standing, like a threesome -- over there are happy.
So I say {le ci prenu cu gleki}. If you identify which people I'm
talking about, agree that they're happy, but go and count them and
find that they are a foursome, I want you to answer {ja'a go'i}, not
{na go'i}, though you are very welcome to also answer {na'i go'i}
too.=20

(This is a point I picked up from McCawley, btw.)

#<<
#So I'm back to square one then, understandingwise. Never mind, I'll
#see if McCawley enlightens me.
#>>
#Sorry if I didn't fit your hypothesis.  I have trouble imagining what you=
=20
#could have been thinking of.  The importing forms (yes, restricted=20
#quantification) always entail the corresponding unrestricted ones.  If som=
e=20
#broda is brode then there are broda and something is brode -- the same thi=
ng,=20
#in fact.

I had trouble imaging what I could have been thinking of, too. I know
what I was trying to grope towards, but ended up talking nonsense.

#<<
#yet it's easy to come up with examples of
#nonimporting "every": "everyone who answers all questions successfully
#will pass the course" -- this does not claim that some has answered
#or will answer all questions successfully.
#>>
#But, I would never say that but rather "Any student ,,,"

OK. Maybe there really are interlectal differences, then.

#<<
#I understand where you're coming from, treating presupposition as
#kind of analogous to parenthesis. But from what I say above, you
#can see that I see presupposition as basically a matter of scope
#relative to the illocutionary operator.
#>>
#Neat.  And I would add that negation then comes after the presuppositional=
=20
#part, either as part of or in the scope of the illocutionary operator. =
=20

I'm pleased you like the idea. Yes, certainly negation is within the scope =
of
the illocutionary operator, except of course for {na'i} which I (and you) w=
ould=20
take to be a negator with scope over everything else (including stuff outsi=
de
the scope of the illoc-op.

#<<
#Of course, but you seemed to imply that there were many such cases.
#I suspect that there aren't, and that if you did find some, the
#authors might feel that their usage was an inadvertent mistake.
#>>
#Sorry about the implication (worse, I think I asserted it, without checkin=
g=20
#what data I had).  There don't seem to be any cases at all one way or the=
=20
#other.  So, no conclusion can be drawn from usage, althoug the absence of=
=20
#usage might suggest that people just don't quite know what to do with it. =
=20
#Or, more likely, that no occasion has arisen for both mentioning the size =
of=20
#the set (and precious few for that alone) and negating.

Right. The infrequency of {lo PA broda} is comparable to the infrequency
of {lo broda noi brode ku} -- they both provide information that does not
restrict the referent set.

--And.