From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Jul 17 11:09:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 17 Jul 2001 18:09:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 16017 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 18:08:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Jul 2001 18:08:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 18:08:25 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (169.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.169]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6HI8KF45837 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010717140704.00c326c0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:12:27 -0400 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] questions about DOI & cmene In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010716233108.00c226a0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 06:04 PM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >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. le cribe doesn't necessarily describe either, since it is non-veridical. le nanmu need not be male or human, nor even to seem male or human, so long as the listener can identify the reference from the description. I don't much see the difference between this and "naming" except that the NORM with a le description is somewhat closer to being a veridical description than is the norm for a la description. 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". But since it is non-veridical, it does not actually do so, because expressing the bridi in Lojban claims it as being true, which is precisely what "le" descriptions do NOT do. 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