From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Sep 26 06:08:38 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 26 Sep 2002 13:08:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 4672 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2002 13:08:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Sep 2002 13:08:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Sep 2002 13:08:37 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:36:20 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:09:03 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:08:55 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: #a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: #<< #> {lo ro broda cu brode} means something like "some broda is brode #> and the cardinality of the set of broda is the cardinality of the #> set of broda" -- I can't think of a better way of putting it, #> unfortunately. The Lojban is not tautologous like my English version, #> but it is as vacuously uninformative. Maybe "some broda is brode #> and lo'i broda has a cardinality" might be better. #>=20 #> So in that case, {lo ro broda na brode} means "it is not the case #> that both some broda is brode and the cardinality of the set of #> broda is the cardinality of the set of broda (or, alternatively, #> lo'i broda has cardinality". Since it obviously is the case that the=20 #> cardinality #> of lo'i broda is the cardinality of lo'i broda -- or that #> lo'i broda has a cardinality -- the inevitable inference is that #> it is not the case that some broda is brode. #>> #That is, of course, interpretation. What is said is that the cardinality = is=20 #ro, just another number.=20=20 But ro functions here as a cardinal number and means "the number equal to the cardinality of lo'i broda". As a cardinality indicator, it's hard to= see ro as anything other than a dummy filler; it is utterly uninformative. #So, if negation is going to affect that, it changes it to {me'iro} or some= =20 #other version of {na'e ro}.=20=20 But the claim made by the cardinality indicator -- lo'i broda cu PA mei -- is always linked by logical AND to some other proposition, and its the conjunction that gets negated. So {lo ro broda na brode} means {ga lo'i broda na ro mei gi su'o broda na brode}. Now if {lo'i broda na ro mei}, then indeed ro would change to some version of na'e ro. But that would be so nonsensical that the only plausible interpretation of {ga lo'i broda na ro mei gi su'o broda na brode} is as equivalent to {su'o broda na brode}. #Now, that may in the end=20 #give an equally contradictory component of some compound, if that is how i= t=20 #develops, and tha component may drop out to give just the basic negative,= =20 #without any component about cardinality. But what then justifies adding b= ack=20 i#n a cardinality component, namely, the one jut dropped out. I suppose th= at=20 #it come back in because it is a tautology (why the negation dropped out). = =20 #Well, at least this coheres so far, but I await a case where {lo PA broda}= =20 #negated turns up as {lo na'e PA broda}. (As you point out later, this may= be=20 #a long wait because no one ever uses {lo PA broda}.) The three Graces, the seven seas, the 51 states of the USA -- those are equivalent to (ro) lo PA broda. #<< #Firstly, but less importantly, 'definite descriptions' -- closely #comparable to Lojban le -- are fairly standard exx of presupposition, #I think. #>> #You mean as a way to dodge the Russell cases.=20=20 Yes. Bald French kings etc. #Probably, although I=20 #personally go with the explicit formats, the eight and ninety ways remaini= ng=20 #to do descriptions -- all of which are also right. # #<< #Second, the essence of le is specificity, with nonveridicality something #of a by-product. My personal view is that logically specificity #involves existential quantification outside the scope of the operator #that carries illocutionary force (e.g. assertive force). If the #sumti tail is held to also be outside the scope of the illocutionary #operator, then nonveridicality is an automatic consequence. It is #also my personal view that the essence of presupposition/conventional #implicature that it is outside the scope of the illocutionary #operator. Therefore I see specificity as "presuppositional existential #quantification". #>> #Both of these theories of yours are interesting and need some mulling (my= =20 #first instinct is to like it a lot). But I don't see that the fact that y= ou=20 #have these theories (even if they turn out to be correct -- i.e., pick of = the=20 l#itter) requires us to use them to explain the present case, which isn't=20 #directly about that. But, of course, if specificity is a pre-illocution=20 #quantifier, then INNER, which is that quantifier, is presuppositional. Hold on: my theory/claims are: * Specificity is a pre-illocution quantifier. {le} =3D "pre-illocution-{lo}= ". * Everything following {le} is preillocutionary/presuppositional (i.e. the INNER and the rest of the sumti tail). * Everything following {lo} is not preillocutionary/presuppositional (i.e.= =20 neither the INNER nor the rest of the sumti tail). #<< #Finally, I too don't recall it ever having been established that #the inner cardinality indicator is nonveridical (=3Dsubjectively #defined), but I think that is the more consistent position to take. #>> #So, when I say {le ci mlatu} meaning those four dogs -- or even those four= =20 #cats -- I did not misspeak myself, since I know what I mean -- but can't=20 #count -- and you know what I mean, even if you can count? Given the histo= ry=20 #of {le}, that seems plausible -- and thoroughly disastrous.=20=20 That's right, except it's not disastrous -- it's desirable. I want to provi= de info within the le sumti to help you identify the referent set, but so long as it aids with identification I don't want to *claim* that info is true. E.g. I want to say that those people -- those in the group that looks, from where we're standing, like a threesome -- over there are happy. So I say {le ci prenu cu gleki}. If you identify which people I'm talking about, agree that they're happy, but go and count them and find that they are a foursome, I want you to answer {ja'a go'i}, not {na go'i}, though you are very welcome to also answer {na'i go'i} too.=20 (This is a point I picked up from McCawley, btw.) #<< #So I'm back to square one then, understandingwise. Never mind, I'll #see if McCawley enlightens me. #>> #Sorry if I didn't fit your hypothesis. I have trouble imagining what you= =20 #could have been thinking of. The importing forms (yes, restricted=20 #quantification) always entail the corresponding unrestricted ones. If som= e=20 #broda is brode then there are broda and something is brode -- the same thi= ng,=20 #in fact. I had trouble imaging what I could have been thinking of, too. I know what I was trying to grope towards, but ended up talking nonsense. #<< #yet it's easy to come up with examples of #nonimporting "every": "everyone who answers all questions successfully #will pass the course" -- this does not claim that some has answered #or will answer all questions successfully. #>> #But, I would never say that but rather "Any student ,,," OK. Maybe there really are interlectal differences, then. #<< #I understand where you're coming from, treating presupposition as #kind of analogous to parenthesis. But from what I say above, you #can see that I see presupposition as basically a matter of scope #relative to the illocutionary operator. #>> #Neat. And I would add that negation then comes after the presuppositional= =20 #part, either as part of or in the scope of the illocutionary operator. = =20 I'm pleased you like the idea. Yes, certainly negation is within the scope = of the illocutionary operator, except of course for {na'i} which I (and you) w= ould=20 take to be a negator with scope over everything else (including stuff outsi= de the scope of the illoc-op. #<< #Of course, but you seemed to imply that there were many such cases. #I suspect that there aren't, and that if you did find some, the #authors might feel that their usage was an inadvertent mistake. #>> #Sorry about the implication (worse, I think I asserted it, without checkin= g=20 #what data I had). There don't seem to be any cases at all one way or the= =20 #other. So, no conclusion can be drawn from usage, althoug the absence of= =20 #usage might suggest that people just don't quite know what to do with it. = =20 #Or, more likely, that no occasion has arisen for both mentioning the size = of=20 #the set (and precious few for that alone) and negating. Right. The infrequency of {lo PA broda} is comparable to the infrequency of {lo broda noi brode ku} -- they both provide information that does not restrict the referent set. --And.