Re: Long reply to Lojbab's splurge.

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> 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 be the point? Does {da poi broda cu broda} say anything
more than just {da broda}? {zo'e} is not just {da poi broda},
or {da voi broda}, it is usually much more specific than that.

{zo'e broda} entails {da broda}, but it entails much more.

> > 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.

If {zo'e klama} is true, then the referent of {zo'e} does klama.
But that is too obvious, so I guess there must be something I'm
still misssing. Veridicality concerns descriptions, and we have
no descriptions here.

> > {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 This is a case where usage has already superseded the official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).

Why do you say that usage superseded the official description?
I think the description is "obvious or irrelevant", which seems to
fit your description well.


> Is there any x such that you see a contrast between x and the whole of
> x?

In English? Or do you mean if I see any contrast between {ta} and
{piro ta} in Lojban? I don't, other than emphasis.

> Are {mi prami ti} and {mi prami pi ro ti} necessarily synonymous?

I don't see any difference, I just see the {piro} as totally redundant
there, and so maybe being used to make the {ti} bigger. (Something
like "these" instead of "this".) But if {ti} has been already determined
to have the same referent, then I don't see the difference.

> > 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.

And that is exactly what liking it whole means. Liking {piro lei cukta}
does not mean liking each component. Components are not even considered
for the liking. They are only mentioned to determine the object that is
to be liked.

> "Do you like the book" and "Do you like all of the book" can receive
> different answers.

In English, I agree. Because "Do you like all of the book" has the
connotation of asking about whether you like each part of the book.
But that is not the case for {piro}, in my opinion.

"Do you like all of the book" would be better translated as
{xu do nelci ro lu'a le selcku}, rather than {xu do nelci piro le selcku},
which is the same as {xu do nelci le selcku}.

Jorge