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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I don't think it's true in general. It's true only if the sumti "la
tom" and "la tomas" have been assigned the same value outside of the
du'u context.

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

Yes, that's a good way of saying it. Referent assignments made inside
a du'u stay within that context. A different case would be something
like this:

la tom goi ko'a cu du la tomas goi ko'e .i se ni'i bo lo du'u ko'a du
ko'e cu du lo du'u ko'a du ko'a

> 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.

Not to any great extent. That would mean there had to be some great
theorist when Lojban was designed that already had all the answers,
but that was not the case.

> 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.}

Someone might be willing to assent to that, but if you ask them
whether they really think knowing one amounts to the same thing as
knowing the other they would hopefully soon realize that that can't be
the case, so there has to be some problem with a theory that prredicts
that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes