From pycyn@aol.com Sun Sep 22 13:27:57 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 22 Sep 2002 20:27:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 20037 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2002 20:27:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Sep 2002 20:27:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2002 20:27:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.35.2d4cd624 (25711) for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 16:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35.2d4cd624.2abf81b4@aol.com> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 16:27:32 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_35.2d4cd624.2abf81b4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_35.2d4cd624.2abf81b4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/22/2002 5:37:58 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk 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. --part1_35.2d4cd624.2abf81b4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/22/2002 5:37:58 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk 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. --part1_35.2d4cd624.2abf81b4_boundary--