From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Jul 16 19:33:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 17 Jul 2001 02:33:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 61421 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 02:33:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jul 2001 02:33:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 02:33:01 -0000 Received: from m10-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.10] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15MKQS-0005ac-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:17:28 +0100 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] questions about DOI & cmene Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:32:10 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010716193100.00c23b20@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Lojbab: > At 10:58 AM 07/16/2001 -0400, John Cowan wrote: > >Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > > > At 04:45 AM 07/15/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > >>No -- what you say is in clear contradiction to the Woldy Codex, page 136 > > >>in discussion of ex. 11.5, though I too was in error. It is clear from > > >>the book that "coi nanmu" = "coi le nanmu" = "coi do voi nanmu fa ke'a". > > > > > > Well, I could say the book is wrong, but that wouldn't be appropriate. %^) > > > > > > I'll just say that in ex. 11.5 there doesn't seem to be a substantial > > > difference in meaning between his chosen expansion and mine, which would > > > have use "la" instead of "le". > > > >Sure there is. I distinctly remember asking you whether "doi girl in > >the red dress" (Carter vocative) was intended to be veridical or non-v., > >and you distinctly said non-v. There was no question of its meaning > >"O person named Girl In Red Dress!" which indeed is doi la etc. > > Umm, asking me veridical or non-v. doesn't to me differentiate between la > and le, since both are non-v. in that neither la xunre nor le xunre have to > actually be red. It differentiates between la/le and lo. > > Saying that there was no question of its meaning something doesn't tell me > whether it means it or doesn't mean it (I can read it either way), so which > are you concluding? I'm open to correction, but I believe veridicality and nonveridicality are properties of descriptions. LE sumti and LO sumti are descriptions. LA sumti are not descriptions. "le broda goi ko'a" expresses the bridi "ko'a broda", but indicates that the bridi is not being claimed to be true. "la broda goi ko'a" does not express the bridi "ko'a broda". Hence LA is not nonveridical (and nor is it veridical). Anyway, it follows that if you said that doi+selbri is nonveridical, then what you said entailed that it is a description, and hence John would have been quite right to conclude that "doi broda" means "doi le broda". Evidently he misunderstood you, but ha! it's too late now! It's amusing to see how the rules of Lojban get established. John lapidarily sets down what he rationalizes and (mis)understands from his oracle, which is you, who in turn rationalize and (mis)understand what you remember from your oracle, which was JCB. I suppose it's a tribute to each member of this oracular tradition that the end result is remarkably coherent, all things conmidered. --And.