Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:45:36 +0100

Nick:
>>> Nick NICHOLAS <[email-masked]> 08/21/01 03:41am >>>
#
#cu'u la xorxes
#
#>>Lesson 14 currently says in an exercise that the 'chicken' Zhang is
#>>building out of pretzels should not be described as {lo jipci}, but {le
#>>jipci}. Should this now be eliminated?
#
#>At least it should be modified, because the alternative to {lo jipci}
#>is {lo jipci tarmi} not {le jipci}. There's no reason why the pretzel
#>nature of the object would require a definite instead of an indefinite
#>reference.
#
#xorxes, you know better than that: {le} is not definite, it's
#non-veridical, and the case of {le ninmu} that turns out to be {lo nanmu}
#is definitional to it. Definiteness is neither here nor there.

This is not really correct. {le} has two defining properties, (a) it is
specific (a.k.a. referential), and (b) the sumti-tail up to the ku is
nonveridical. (b) is something of an incidential by-product of (a);
the sumti tail serves to identify the referent, and for such a
function, veridicality is unnecessary or even a hindrance.

Technically, though, {le} is not necessarily definite, though in usage
it seems to be used as an equivalent of "the". Definite = addressee
can identify the referent. (In fact, if usage were taken to be decisive,
then {le} would probably be necessarily-definite but not-necessarily-
specific. But this usage is based on a misunderstanding of {le}
as defined by the consensus opinion at the time the Refgram was 
written.)

Anyway, as for the original jipci question, {le jipci} would be an appalling
rendition. {lo jipci} is okay, though definitely a case of loose use --
"Something is such that it is a chicken and it is made of pretzels"
only loosely approximates to the chickenmaking situation being 
described.

#You can contend that {le} should be definite, not non-veridical. I would
#go further, and say that since Bertrand Russell came up with the iota
#quantifier yay back when, using a non-veridical to model definiteness is
#embarrassing. But that's set in stone for Lojban.

I must admit I haven't come across an exposition of the iota operator
such that I have understood exactly what it is. But at any rate, if
English is any guide, nonveridicality occurs precisely in definites.
The two things are logically independent of each other, but
functionally interdependent.

--And.