Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 16:27:32 EDT

In a message dated 9/22/2002 5:37:58 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> where there is dispute about whether some
> piece of meaning is within the scope of what is asserted or 
> outside it (i.e. presupposed/conventionally implicated), the
> default/null hypothesis is that it is within. This is because
> Lojban makes little if any use of presupposition/conventional
> implicature (outside of UI, at least), does not discuss it in
> Woldy, and has no established tradition of acknowledging its
> existence in Lojban.
>>
I am hesitant to agree to such a sweeping principle, lest it be wielded 
without looking at the case at issue and hence stifle debate. However, I 
thnk that there are a variety of facts that suggest that internal 
quantification is presuppositional. Several have been mentioned already in 
this discussion, but the main one has not: the implicit {su'o} and {ro} and 
actually stated numbers as well, are never changed at the passage of a 
negation boundary: the implicit value with {le} is {su'o} throughout, and for 
{lo}, {ro}. These values can be inserted in any context without changing the 
utterance as a whole.