Re: [lojban] Re: what's a du'u?

[Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com>]

My real concern is about {du'u}, though. As I understand it, it's a
predication (where the arguments are things referred to), so that {lo
du'u la .tom. du la .tom. cu du lo du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.} is
true given that all the names refer to the same person.

Maybe a {du'u} somehow wraps up not only the things referred to, but
the way in which they are referred to?

I wonder to what extent Lojban settles this question for itself rather
than (like English) leaving it open for theorists to come up with all
kinds of different theories about reference, propositions, etc.

I also wonder whether there is evidence to be found in the logs about
whether people typically would assent to {lo du'u la .tom. du la .tom.
cu du lo du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.}

2009/12/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Suppose {la .tom. du la .tomas.} is true.
>>
>> What if any is the difference in meaning, then, between {mi djuno lo
>> du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.} and {mi djuno lo du'u la .tom. du la
>> .tom.}?
>
> You don't really need to bring in "djuno". "la .tom. du la .tomas."
> and "la .tom. du la .tom." already have different meanings, even in
> cases where they are both true. An "la .tom. du ri" has a third
> meaning, because repetition of a name is not always anaphoric. Whereas
> "la .tom. du ri" will always be true, "la .tom. du la .tom." might be
> false if there are two different Toms involved.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>