On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 5:29:39 PM UTC-7, And Rosta wrote:
Dustin Lacewell, On 30/09/2014 22:51:
> I have -never- used {le} to indicate a non-veridical description.
[...]
> {le} has always existed as a Definite Article for me.
If {le}'s definition as "in-mind" and "nonveridical" stands (and clearly not everybody thinks it should), {le} must be a Definite Article. If you nixed "nonveridical" and kept "in-mind" then "le broda" would mean not "the broda" but "certain broda", which is also a useful candidate meaning.
To you, Dustin, I would say the same as I said to selpa'i: the definite article, by its very nature, introduces a nonveridical description.
Okay so, you're clearly far more learned than I am when it comes to zoology that is technical linguistics nomenclature but let me say - I don't think we disagree. That you demonstrate a position where {le} constitutes a definite article is enough for me. The way in which I laid out a case for a definitive article understanding of {le} was no doubt that of a bumbling lay person. I'd like a chance to at least elaborate a little bit about what I meant so that you can agree that we actually agree (which will feel good) or at least so you understand more precisely where I don't understand the technical context.
The description is not part of the propositional content of the main illocution but instead constitutes the propositional content of an autonomous illocution of identification.
So this is relevant to how I was trying to frame my case for a Definite {le}. In my mind, I have the case of Definite Descriptions and Indefinite Descriptions as conceptually isolate from the consequence or relevancy of veridicality. In my mind, as I think I stated, I'm preeeeeetty sure when you think about it, all speech is practically non-veridical. Every description by which we refer to something is an attempt to encourage success in our interlocutors to identify it. This at least 'sounds like' what you're saying too.
If the point I'm missing is that by using a definite description by which to refer to something I'm automatically or inherently creating non-veridical speech I'm okay with that observation. Afterall, I already take the position that -most- referential/descriptive speech is non-veridical anyway. What I wonder is how when we make an indefinite description such as "men" as in "Men are mortal", how this doesn't also create non-veridical speech in the practical sense? Maybe its a subtlety of what non-veridical and veridical means that my current understanding doesn't really cover.
But that said, my insistence on getting away from the non-veridical sense in trying to understand {le} is because I would like to emphasize to anyone reading that it is the distinction against indefinite descriptions through which {le} can be best understood. If one can understand how indefinite descriptions avoid even the potential for identification by the listener or mindful referentiality by the speaker, then you can more readily understand what it means to make a definite description. What 'capability in identification' really means. Not that the speaker is so precise that we know what they are referring to because they have described it really well - but because definite descriptions support referrents. In the opposite way that indefinite descriptions do not.
I'm definitely sure you understand the difference between definite and indefinite descriptions but I wanted to explain why I tried to distance the conversation about caring about veridicality at all. It is the ability of {le} to create definite descriptions which is important that I wanted to impart to others trying to understand {le} from the definite perspective.