Subject: Re: [lojban] notes on conventional implicature

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:10:50 +0100

>>> Lionel Vidal <[email-masked]> 09/23/02 04:41pm >>>
#and:
#> Lojban definitely has conventional implicature:
#> * some UI
#> * "le broda" is equivalent to
#> "[unasserted:] da poi ro lu'a ke'a broda .... [asserted:] ro lu'a
da"
#> However, these are special cases. Other debated cases have been
#> resolved against conv-implic.
#
#I agree, but I would have found more 'natural' for a logical language
#to avoid these special cases by having no conv-implic and maybe
#some explicit mechanism (special cmavos maybe) to allow it on demand.
#Truth value affectations would have been much cleaner.

This is exactly my sentiment too. But in a sense the uncontroversial
examples, UI and le, are marked -- UI by the selmaho, and as for
le, it's the essence of what makes le differe from lo.

--And.