On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:00:45 AM UTC-4, xorxes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 7:35 AM, selpa'i
<sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
Although, if {le} is defined as a name, then the other definition I showed is available to define {lo}. Then there would at least be a much clearer difference between the two gadri.
The reason a Russell type quantifier is not quite right for "lo" is that we don't want "naku lo broda cu brode" to be true just because there are no brodas. The Frege/Strawson analysis is more in line with "lo", I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description
After reading over that, there's one thing I do know for sure. Man is exceedingly capable at tying himself up in mental knots.
That's the reason for "noi" in the definition, we don't want the description to share the illocutionary force of the claim, it has to be a presupposition or something like that.
This may be of some interest to the conversation: http://wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9505/msg00071.html