From 3lLnDSwkJBl05I8.MJNO5BH5DG.7JHGJE65IBJJBG9BMJPKN.7JH@groups.bounces.google.com Mon Apr 12 17:24:14 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f140.google.com ([209.85.210.140]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3lLnDSwkJBl05I8.MJNO5BH5DG.7JHGJE65IBJJBG9BMJPKN.7JH@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1O1TvD-0000ub-0O; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:24:14 -0700 Received: by yxe4 with SMTP id 4sf3390665yxe.28 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:24:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:received:received:message-id:date :from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N1Ok1SKNGMb3H62tMa6LohKnmbU5awTW0yZwM67ou58=; b=FaBz12yLv3zgRggqQScTVhaYF9h+dX1sIuaxBAOgzXJrAIRFA1upkQrWCACS3Y69XI 1WpEv7HclNMsE9UBsKZqn5D9N9ORQVm58tFUW+zd4eVzaRGlT75ZbfiC61y/9+3rbPjy g7+ojhTLz4N36Vo+XVSi9NtNLe7ggv3L/ygbU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=s3ArqRo5HXxvX6ZEH2N+SjCd99j1YMNkVEclMHu/5NZx8Lz5mu7sRPBhhdFVq4FTnp LV4ByvJ/gX3sMyrLi0D/Lybv3M7xFS2JPbyBnErk7sNAJoj8Vef2CvAmNNGZ94ccGzfK S67Zfz3pAW0Jt23YcOBRZ8E9KYCwDwgpSaXdU= Received: by 10.91.91.8 with SMTP id t8mr758160agl.16.1271118228540; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:23:48 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.35.68 with SMTP id o4ls146230bkd.1.p; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.23.66 with SMTP id q2mr152536bkb.23.1271118226580; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.23.66 with SMTP id q2mr152534bkb.23.1271118226544; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com (mail-bw0-f227.google.com [209.85.218.227]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 12si491444bwz.5.2010.04.12.17.23.45; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.227 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.227; Received: by mail-bw0-f227.google.com with SMTP id 27so5109320bwz.18 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.75.67 with SMTP id x3mr5706439bkj.116.1271118225123; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.67] (87-194-76-9.bethere.co.uk [87.194.76.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x16sm42084614bku.11.2010.04.12.17.23.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BC3B98F.5070805@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:23:43 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <20100409014708.GB11541@digitalkingdom.org> <4BBF197D.6080601@lojban.org> <20100409222518.GN11541@digitalkingdom.org> <4BC02ABC.8000300@lojban.org> <4BC1D15A.5030409@lojban.org> <4BC36464.8010707@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.227 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/33d26e8385fed297 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/d56181d0b51d02c5 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 12/04/2010 22:57: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:20 PM, And Rosta wrote: >> After some googling I found >> , and while the informal >> definition of E gadri as specific is as expected, this formal definition >> seems erroneous, for two reasons. The first is that "zo'e noi mi ke'a do >> skicu lo ka ce'u broda" does not encode specificity (aka referentiality)= . >> The second is that the contents of the noi phrase fall within the >> truth-conditions of the containing bridi. You could probably argue that = this >> is trivial, because "mi ke'a do skicu" is true by virtue of being uttere= d, >> so affects the truth-conditions vacuously, but that performativity is no= t >> encoded, so "mi ke'a do skicu" is not in fact true by virtue of being >> uttered, so is not truth-conditionally inert. >=20 > You're right on both counts (though I personally wouldn't conflate > specificity and referentiality). Nor would I, actually. =20 >> I'd have thought the second >> problem could have been remedied by using "voi" rather than "noi", thoug= h I >> expect this must have been considered and rejected for some reason, and = it >> still leaves the first problem. >=20 > If I remember correctly, the reason I decided against "voi" was that > "voi" is defined as the non-veridical counterpart of "poi", and what I > wanted was a non-veridical counterpart of "noi".=20 That objection had occurred to me, but it seems to me that the restrictive-= -nonrestrictive distinction isn't applicable -- that "le du ku noi broda" a= nd "le du ku poi broda" don't differ in meaning. =20 >> I'm also wondering whether there exists an experimental specific KOhA, a >> nonanaphoric "it/them". (I think I used to use "le du" in lieu of such.)= If >> there were, then E gadri could be defined as "zo'e'e voi ke'a broda", no= ? >> (where zo'e'e is the specific KOhA). >=20 > Maybe "zo'e'e no'oi ke'a broda", with "no'oi" as the non-restrictive > version of "voi". >=20 > But I don't really have any clear understanding of what "zo'e'e" could > be used for, other than to define "le".=20 Surely the meanings "le du", "a certain something or someone" are fairly ob= vious and useful. If "lo du" =3D "zo'e", then "le du" might equally well ha= ve a KOhA counterpart. Furthermore, the syntax of "zo'e'e no'oi ke'a broda"= more closely matches the structure of the semantics. > My current, tentative, > understanding is that specificity is mostly a matter of degree rather > than an on/off thing, so not really something that needs its own > gadri, and I'm experimenting with using "lo" as the only gadri. Have you written up your tentative understanding? Or could you explain it? My view of specificity is that it involves existential quantification outsi= de the scope of the sentence's illocutionary force (which IMO is what 'conv= entional implicatures' are -- stuff in the logical form but outside the sco= pe of illocutionary force). E.g. "A (certain) child laughed", "le verba cu = cmila" mean "Ex, x is a child: I-hereby-state-that x laughed", so what is a= sserted is "x laughed", in which, taken in isolation, x looks like a consta= nt that is not identified. So to me, specificity is on/off rather than scal= ar. --And. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.