[lojban] Re: Lojban and Truth-Conditional Semantics

[la klaku <jakobnybonissen@gmail.com>]

In my use of everyday Lojban, there are no issues about truth
conditions when I speak of sentences like {la djan prami la meris}.
Nor do I think the problem with "domains of discourse" (in the sense
of what descriptive sumti actually refer to) really is a problem in
ordinary speech. Not that I am against Mike's suggestion, i encourage
it, but I'd argue that Lojban's major problems with truth conditions
doesn't lie in simple bridi composed of only (SUMTI SELBRI SUMTI)
The problem is small modifying words. Is the truth condition of {mi
po'o broda} the same as {mi le no drata cu broda}? Does {a'o ko'a
broda} have the same truth conditions as {ko'a broda}? Why not? How
does {da'i} *actually* work? And so I could go on. The worst offender
here is probably the implicit CAhA, since an implicit {ka'e} can wreck
all efforts of trying to establish reasonalbe truth conditions.
I suggest it be defined how these small words interact with the
"normal" truth conditions of the bridi without these modifiers. This
is important in order to interpret ordinary speech.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.