Subject: RE: [lojban] questions about DOI & cmene

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:04:08 +0100

Lojbab:
> At 03:32 AM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
[...]
> >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.

AFAI can see, it is a description in neither the technical sense of logic/
linguistic philosophy, nor the everyday sense. At any rate, I meant 
'descriptions' in the technical sense of referential expressions that
involve a propositional description of the referent. (As I said earlier,
I remain corrigible.)

> But le cribe and la cribe both are indicating a referent using the 
> description "bear" 

This is simply not true for la cribe. La cribe does not describe; it
merely names.

> with the la version having the additional information 
> that I am calling the referent Bear. 

No!! This is not additional information; it is the only information.

> 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, 

ergo: yes it does....

> 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.

I'm not making a point about "goi ko'a". I mean to make the point
that where X is the referent of "le broda", "le broda" expresses
the bridi "X broda". This is not the case for "la broda".

--And.