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

[selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>]

la selpa'i cu cusku di'e
> [snip]

I accidently hit send, here is the rest:

The attributive use at the bottom of my last post does not make a claim 
about an identified object, since we don't know who murdered Smith, just 
that that person must have been crazy to murder Smith. {lo} there is 
rather better than {le}.

The referential use: "For example, suppose that Jones has been charged 
with Smith's murder and has been placed on trial. Imagine that there is 
a discussion of Jones's odd behavior at his trial. We might sum up our 
impression of his behavior by saying, "Smith's murderer is insane." If 
someone asks to whom we are referring, by using this description, the 
answer here is "Jones." This, I shall say, is a referential use of the 
definite description."

Here, one could make an argument for {le}, the speaker knows the 
real-world object ("Jones"), and by using {le} they can try to make this 
explicit, but again, {lo} doesn't seem any worse here, especially since 
it's so obvious who the murderer is in this situation.

The generic use is obviously {lo} as well.

Overall, these distinctions don't seem very interesting in Lojban. But 
maybe others have more to say about this.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

---
All the quotes are from 
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/00-01/phil_lang/readings/donnellan-01.html

--
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.