Re: Long reply to Lojbab's splurge.

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> And & lojbab:
> > > >> I guess a formal definition of a zo'e in the nth place of a
> > > >> predicate broda is "le sexiny broda" or perhaps "da voi sexiny
> > > >> broda"
> > > >That sounds a bit daft to me, given the non-veridicality of le and
> > > >voi.
> > > Do you mean that you think that "zo'e" is veridical???  That sounds
> > > *more than a bit* daft to me %^)
> > {zoe klama} entails not merely {da voi klama} but also {da poi klama}.
> > I am not merely describing zoe as a goer; I'm claiming that {da klama}.
> I don't see how either position can be right. {zo'e} is neither veridical
> nor non-veridical, because it is not a description.

It should be obvious what Lojbab & I meant. Can you define {zoe} in
{zoe broda} as not only {da voi broda} but also as {da poi broda}?
Or {da voi coe geu noi broda}.

> What would it mean to say it is veridical? It has a referent that is
> obvious from context. There is nothing for it to be veridical about.

Its membership in the tersui.

> {zo'e klama} means that the obvious referent goes.

This is a case where usage has already superseded the official
description. {zoe klama} means
gonai
   that something really does klama and that the identity of this
   something *is as obvious to the addressee as it is to the speaker*
   (often the referent is not in the least obvious (typically for
   obscure tersui like "under conditions" and "by standard"); consider
   the recent {ci nanmu cu pencu ci gerku} discussion - the identity
   of the x2 of gerku is not in the least obvious, but it is mutually
   apparent to us interlocutors that there is an x2 and that its identity
   is irrelevant)
gi
   that {da klama} is true and that it is obvious what phrase could
   replace {zoe} (either {da}, or {lo coe}, or whatever).

> (Somewhere it is said that {zo'e} can stand for {noda}, but I believe
> that it cannot, because that is tantamount to saying that {mi klama}
> can mean {mi na klama}.)

You have to be right.

> It can't entail {da poi klama} because a bridi can't entail a sumti.
> A sumti is not a statement.

It entails that if you replace {zoe} by {da poi klama} the conditions
under which the {da poi} version is true is a superset of of the
conditions under which the {zoe} version is true. We can
reasonably call that entailment, informally.

> > > You cancel the implicit quantifier by putting in your own explicit one.
> > > Why is this hard?
> > It may not be relevant to {loi}. But for {lei}, you have a contrast
> > between the mass, a portion of the mass, and the whole of the mass.
> I don't see much difference between the mass and the whole of the
> mass. If it's just a matter of emphasis, you can make the pragmatic
> distinction between explicitly stating the quantifier and leaving
> it unstated. Otherwise, I don't see the contrast.

Is there any x such that you see a contrast between x and the whole of
x? Are {mi prami ti} and {mi prami pi ro ti} necessarily synonymous?

> > E.g. "I like the bookage",
> > as distinct from "I like all of the bookage" {mi nelci (piro) lei
> > cukta},
> And how would those differ in meaning? You either like it or you
> don't. If you want to add whether there are components that you like
> or not, you may do so. To like something, do you have to like
> each component, or most components, or just the general effect
> they produce? That's a matter of the meaning of "like", independent
> of masses.

Exactly. That's why I don't want to be obliged to make explicit whether
I like the entirety of the bookage. What matters is that overall I like it.
"Do you like the book" and "Do you like all of the book" can receive
different answers.

---
And