Re: [lojban] {le} and {lo} ... and Keith Donnellan?

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Probably not.  I don't think Keith had any knowledge of Loglan (though I could be wrong -- I wasn't as involved back then) in which {le} already had (implicitly, at least) the value as a purely denotative description.  Later developments of {le} and especially {lo} seem to have been independent of his work until it was brought in with the most recent synthesis.  Evidence to the contrary would be very interesting.

---

From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:35 AM
Subject: [lojban] {le} and {lo} ... and Keith Donnellan?

coi lo mriste

This is just a short question and I don't want to discuss
the whole topic right now, because we'll probably
have that discussion in 1-2 month with some more detailed
texts/research to talk about. I will write a term paper
on that topic.

The question is: Is there or isn't there a direct ba'e historical
connection between Keith Donnellan's paper "Reference and Definite
Descriptions" and the current usage of {le} and {lo}?


mi'e la .van. mu'o

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