<<
{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.
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 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 ro, just another number. So, if negation is going to affect that, it changes it to {me'iro} or some other version of {na'e ro}. Now, that may in the end give an equally contradictory component of some compound, if that is how it develops, and tha component may drop out to give just the basic negative, without any component about cardinality. But what then justifies adding back in a cardinality component, namely, the one jut dropped out. I suppose that it come back in because it is a tautology (why the negation dropped out). Well, at least this coheres so far, but I await a case where {lo PA broda} negated turns up as {lo na'e PA broda}. (As you point out later, this may be a long wait because no one ever uses {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. Probably, although I personally go with the explicit formats, the eight and ninety ways remaining 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 first instinct is to like it a lot). But I don't see that the fact that you have these theories (even if they turn out to be correct -- i.e., pick of the litter) requires us to use them to explain the present case, which isn't directly about that. But, of course, if specificity is a pre-illocution quantifier, then INNER, which is that quantifier, is presuppositional.
<<
Finally, I too don't recall it ever having been established that
the inner cardinality indicator is nonveridical (=subjectively
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 cats -- I did not misspeak myself, since I know what I mean -- but can't count -- and you know what I mean, even if you can count? Given the history of {le}, that seems plausible -- and thoroughly disastrous.
<<
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 could have been thinking of. The importing forms (yes, restricted quantification) always entail the corresponding unrestricted ones. If some broda is brode then there are broda and something is brode -- the same thing, in fact.
<<
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 ,,,"
<<
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 part, either as part of or in the scope of the illocutionary operator.
<<
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 checking what data I had). There don't seem to be any cases at all one way or the other. So, no conclusion can be drawn from usage, althoug the absence of usage might suggest that people just don't quite know what to do with it. Or, more likely, that no occasion has arisen for both mentioning the size of the set (and precious few for that alone) and negating.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
|
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.