Subject: RE: [lojban] Could this be it? (was: I like chocolate)

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:24:01 +0000

la and cusku di'e

>I go along with you about {lo'e broda} not entailing
>{da broda}. If {lo'i broda cu no mei}, then no da broda but
>we can still legitimately talk about lo'e broda.

Agreed.

>But we may disagree about the other bit. I see no difference between
>{lo'e broda cu klama} and {la tom klama}. Both, I think, entail
>{da klama}, yet both may lack an extension in a given world.

For me, names must have a referent in the corresponding world.
Also, I could not use a name to get the same sense of {lo'e broda}.
I can say {zo tom cmene lo'e pavyseljirna}, which says that "Tom"
is a name of unicorns, but it does not mean that using the name
{la tom} will have the same effect as using the generic NP
{lo'e pavyseljirna} in another sentence.

>If we
>say "lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi", I don't see why that shouldn't
>entail "da blabi", within the worlds in which {lo'e pavyseljirna
>cu blabi} or {la tom cu blabi} (where la tom is a or the unicorn)
>is true.

{la tom cu blabi} does entail {da blabi}, no argument about
that, and of course in worlds with unicorns one could be called
Tom. In words with no unicorns, there can't be a unicorn called
Tom, obviously, but {lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi} can still be true.
Indeed in those worlds {lo'e pavyseljirna cu pavyseljirna} is true,
"unicorns are unicorns", and {da pavyseljirna} is false.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com