From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Jul 16 20:40:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 17 Jul 2001 03:40:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 9755 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 03:39:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jul 2001 03:39:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 03:39:49 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (47.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.47]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6H3dmA65673 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:39:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010716233108.00c226a0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:43:54 -0400 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] questions about DOI & cmene In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010716193100.00c23b20@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 03:32 AM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >Lojbab: > > At 10:58 AM 07/16/2001 -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > > > 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. LA + [description] is a description just as much as LE + [description] is a description, except that we are specifically using the description for naming purposes. But le cribe and la cribe both are indicating a referent using the description "bear" with the la version having the additional information that I am calling the referent Bear. In neither case does the referent have to actually be a bear, so both are non veridical. > "le broda goi ko'a" expresses the bridi "ko'a broda", No it doesn't. The two are effectively equivalent, but I don't call one a definition of the other. Actually it seems to me that "goi ko'a" is more like "noi se cmene zo ko'a", but I also don't consider that one definitional either. >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! Probably neither of us realized the exact meaning of the question as interpreted by the other. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org