[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
la .and. cu cusku di'e
selpa'i, On 29/09/2014 13:27:
la .and. cu cusku di'e
I think the whole notion of veridicality and non-veridicality is
overstated.
Yes, it is overstated in CLL, early teaching materials, and Lojbab-level
understanding of gadri, but it is nevertheless not insignificant.
It probably depends on what one takes {le} to mean. I have yet to see
someone formulate a theory of its semantics in logical terms, and also
how it might differ from {lo}, which I'm not convinced it does. Vague
explanations are no longer enough to define the meaning of the different
gadri.
For the definite description nature of {le}, which is its main
purpose, non-veridicality is irrelevant, and it would more likely to
be defined in terms of quantifiers in a formal logic.
On the contrary, the description, with its identificatory function, is
nonveridical; to put it another way, it has independent illocutionary
force of an identification, not an assertion; it is not part of the
propositional content of the main sentential illocution.
Sure, but why does that matter so much? This isn't a necessary part of
definite descriptions, as I see it. The logical structure of "The cats
are still in my garden" can be examined without bothering with
non-veridicality. Does {le} need to be different?
When I say it can be defined in terms of quantifiers, I mean that any
expression involving {le} or {lo} has an equivalent form that uses {da}.
In the simplest form, we know that {lo broda cu brode} entails {su'oi da
broda gi'e brode} (but not {su'o da broda gi'e brode}).
These kinds of relationships can be taken much further, so that we not
only arrive at -> but also at <->.
For example, one possible way to define {lo} or {le} is:
lo broda cu brode
su'oi da poi ge broda gi ro'oi de poi brode zo'u de me da zo'u da brode
[Exx : broda(xx) /\ [Ayy : brode(yy)] me(yy,xx)] brode(xx)
(where double letters denote plural variables)
That's what I did in Toaq Dzu.
One could now argue about whether this is more appropriate as a
definition of {le} rather than {lo}, but the point is that this is the
kind of thing I would understand to be an actual definition.
Questions of veridicality are at another level, and in my opinion they
are not specific to {le}. We know that the possible referents of {lo}
vary wildly between domains, and in practice it doesn't matter if {lo
broda} is used to refer to something that actually doesn't broda but
which everyone thinks does broda, because the logical form is unaffected
by this, it's only the domain that's different.
Instead of {lo broda voi brode} you can always say {lo broda noi/poi
mi skicu ke'a fo lo ka brode} and {noi simlu lo ka brode}.
Almost. But you need to sort out the illocutionarity. Is there a UI for
'hereby'? What'd be good would be a ko-like version of mi, meaning "I
hereby", such that the bridi it is a sumti of expresses an independent
illocution: {lo broda noi/poi mi HEREBY skicu ke'a fo lo ka brode}
Yes, "hereby" is {ca'e}, the performative. The ma'oste definition is
bad, but CLL agrees with the perfomative interpretation.
As this is something that is relatively rarely needed, it doesn't
matter that it doesn't have a shortcut cmavo.
It comes prebaked into le- gadri,
Out of necessity or simply for historical reasons?
but for any other identificatory
phrase it's needed. E.g. for something like "the day of the week that we
got married on", referring to Tuesday (without claiming we got married
on Tuesday), "lo day-of-the-week identificatory-poi we got married on
ke'a" -- much as Pierre's orangutan example.
lo jeftydei poi ca ke'a mi'o spesimbi'o
the weekday on which we got married
What problems do you see with this?
Without it, you lose a bit of needed functionality, but you don't wreck
the (putative) logical foundations of the language.
I do not see what would be lost by ignoring non-veridicality as a
defining characteristic of {le} and by acknowledging it as a general
part of human speech.
People already have trouble defining {le}; it probably doesn't help that
it does two things at once.
mi'e la selpa'i 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.