[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

Jorge Llambías, On 08/10/2014 23:40:

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:40 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote:
    Jorge Llambías, On 07/10/2014 21:59:
I do think the nonpresuppositional version fails
to capture what I take "lo" to mean by introducing a claim that is
not there.


But, to repeat my question, why is it that you take this to be the meaning of "lo"? I'm seeking to understand your reasoning (not to challenge it or disagree with it).


        Since "lo" is marked neither as definite/indefinite nor as
        specific/generic, it is useful for identification of its referents
        that it is at least veridical, This also allows maintaining the
        original definition of "lo", prior to CLL: "veridical descriptor: the
        one(s) that really is(are) ..."

    What do you mean by 'identification'? The speaker knows what the referent is, and doesn't need to identify it to themself; and the referents aren't necessarily identifiable to the addressee.

Is "understanding" better than "identification"?


Yes, tho we shd not yet abandon the search for a still better term.

    Yes, the usual paraphrase for "lo broda" is "zo'e noi ke'a broda",

          which changes the presupposition into a side-claim, which is as close
        as we could make it.

    Far better to introduce an experimental cmavo for presupposition than to put about an incorrect paraphrase.

It would be a cmavo with very limited use though, mostly just in
linguistic discussions rather than ordinary discourse. Maybe it can
be covered with a sei-clause, once we figure out exacly how these
clauses work.


At least don't use "zo'e noi ke'a broda" as a definitional paraphrase (unless "noi" gets redefined as presuppositional).

        But even with that paraphase "lo broda cu brodu"
        is not equivalent to "zo'e ge broda gi brodu", because "naku lo broda
        cu brodu" = "naku zo'e noi broda cu brodu" = "zo'e na broda .i ta'o
        ri brodu" is not equivalent to "naku zo'e ge broda gi brodu" = "zo'e
        ga na broda gi na brodu".

    It might be -- coherently -- that "lo broda cu brodu" = "zo'e ge broda gi brodu", while "na ku lo broda cu brodu" = "zo'e ge broda gi na ku brodu", which is what I'd had in mind. That is, the "lo broda cu brodu" = "zo'e ge broda gi brodu" equivalence is not a rule for exchanging word-strings but rather for deriving more basic logical forms from less basic ones.

I think the sentence "zo'e noi broda cu brodu" and the sentence "zo'e
ge broda gi brodu" don't express the same proposition, because the
result of negating each of them results in sentences that express
different propositions.


Which of these do you mean;
(1) Because the negated versions express different propositions, we should make it be the case that the noi and ge sentences express different propositions.
(2) Because the negated versions express different propositions, it follows logically/rationally that the noi and ge sentences express different propositions.

If (1), I don't follow the reasoning. If (2), I think the reasoning is incorrect. It is perfectly possible for -- due to the workings of whatever rules translate morphophonological forms into logical forms -- the unnegated sentences to express the same proposition and the negated sentences to express different ones, and indeed that is actually my current understanding of them. I recognize that if -- contrary to what I have been supposing -- noi has the meaning of English nonrestrictive relatives, then the unnegated versions do express different propositions (where 'propositions' include illocutionary operators and not just their propositional content).

This reminds me that, if I recall correctly, we had different views
when working on Xorban on whether it makes sense for two sentences
with different illocutionary force to be logically connected. For me
logical connection only applies to bare propositions, and not to
propositions-in-use.


My palpably deteriorating memory isn't pinging, so even if you recall correctly, I still don't. I do think that illocutionary operators can themselves be arguments of predicates (e.g. "Is it dinner time yet, for I'm hungry") tho, and since I take logical connectives to be predicates it follows that in principle I must allow illocutionary operators to be logically connected. I'm not sure how this bears on the current discussion, tho.

--And.

--
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.