[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
One of the virtues of being sick as a dog is that I fall leep more often (hard for my wife to imagine!). So, after my last round of corresponding, I dropped off. And when I awoke (and this the virtue part), I had an entirely new perspective on &'s unique R, one not colored by memories of past "myopic singulars" but focusing on the present discussion (I think-- it gets a bit copped up sometimes).
So, using la Ra Pa presupposes that there is exactly one R. Under that presupposition, it says that that one R is P. In a word, it is the Russellian definite description. Well, not quite Russell's, but variant 2. Since this description works only when R is unique, when R is not unique, when the presupposition fails, the sentence simply has no truth value, is neither true nor false. This is generally a rather awkward position in logic, but it is a situation that occurs often enough in real life to have a place in language.
I do wish he didn't use l, though, since my Lojban saturated mind still sees that a {lo} or long-scope s.
Sent from my iPad