[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] tu'o usage



In a message dated 9/22/2002 5:37:58 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<
where there is dispute about whether some
piece of meaning is within the scope of what is asserted or
outside it (i.e. presupposed/conventionally implicated), the
default/null hypothesis is that it is within. This is because
Lojban makes little if any use of presupposition/conventional
implicature (outside of UI, at least), does not discuss it in
Woldy, and has no established tradition of acknowledging its
existence in Lojban.

>>
I am hesitant to agree to such a sweeping principle, lest it be wielded without looking at the case at issue and hence stifle debate.  However, I thnk that there are a variety of facts that suggest that internal quantification is presuppositional.  Several have been mentioned already in this discussion, but the main one has not: the implicit {su'o} and {ro} and actually stated numbers as well, are never changed at the passage of a negation boundary: the implicit value with {le} is {su'o} throughout, and for {lo}, {ro}.  These values can be inserted in any context without changing the utterance as a whole.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.