[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [lojban] questions about DOI & cmene
At 06:04 PM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
Lojbab:
> At 03:32 AM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
[...]
> >I'm open to correction, but I believe veridicality and nonveridicality are
> >properties of descriptions. LE sumti and LO sumti are descriptions. LA
> >sumti are not descriptions.
>
> LA + [description] is a description just as much as LE + [description]
is a
> description, except that we are specifically using the description for
> naming purposes.
AFAI can see, it is a description in neither the technical sense of logic/
linguistic philosophy, nor the everyday sense. At any rate, I meant
'descriptions' in the technical sense of referential expressions that
involve a propositional description of the referent. (As I said earlier,
I remain corrigible.)
> But le cribe and la cribe both are indicating a referent using the
> description "bear"
This is simply not true for la cribe. La cribe does not describe; it
merely names.
le cribe doesn't necessarily describe either, since it is
non-veridical. le nanmu need not be male or human, nor even to seem male
or human, so long as the listener can identify the reference from the
description. I don't much see the difference between this and "naming"
except that the NORM with a le description is somewhat closer to being a
veridical description than is the norm for a la description.
I'm not making a point about "goi ko'a". I mean to make the point
that where X is the referent of "le broda", "le broda" expresses
the bridi "X broda". This is not the case for "la broda".
But since it is non-veridical, it does not actually do so, because
expressing the bridi in Lojban claims it as being true, which is precisely
what "le" descriptions do NOT do.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org