[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Adam:
> de'i li 2002-10-25 ti'u li 16:31:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e
>
> >> If, e.g., lions are on the brink of extinction due to hunting, I
> >> think that 'da kalte loi'e cinfo' is true (taking that 'da' as
> >> something like 'le gunma poi kalte')
> >
> >It's appropriate, not "true". If *the one lion* is on the brink of
> >extinction due to hunting then 'da kalte loi'e cinfo' is true
> >The issue is not the conditions under which {loi'e broda cu brode}
> >is *true* -- that's easy and uncontroversial, since the claim
> >is made only about worlds in which there is just one broda. The
> >issue is the conditions that we can informatively describe as {loi'e
> >broda cu brode}. That is not really a matter for jboske legislation,
> >or so it seems to me
>
> Your original formulation of 'loi'e' did not involve possible worlds,
> but rather a reconceptualization of *this* world. (Is 'a version of
> the world' a possible world?) I reject the possible worlds
> interpretation, since a world with exactly one lion in it would be so
> significantly different from this one, that I would not interpret
> statements about it as relevant to this one
I meant both things: possible worlds that are reconceptualizations
of this one. I.e. not just any old possible world. But at the
same time, a reconceptualization takes us into a different world.
Each way of conceptualizing this world is a world in its own right:
if we (say) argue about which conceptualization is correct (as
scientists and philosophers do) then we are arguing about which
possible world is the real one that we inhabit.
> Perhaps 'true' was not the most appropriate word here, but I think
> that we need to investigate the truth conditions and not the conditions
> for relevant informativeness. If the conditions for relevant
> informativeness are always different from the conditions for truth,
> then the meaning of 'loi'e' ends up changes, and thus eventually
> the truth conditions
Can you say the last sentence again? Even reading 'changed' for
'changes', I still don't understand.
> A reconceptualization of the world in such a drastic manner is certainly
> very subjective, and so for it to work the speaker and listener must
> tend to reconceptualize in similar manners.
True.
> However, there are certain
> ground rules must obtain; most obviously, the reconceptualization must
> be based on lo'i broda, and not le'i, no matter what the context
Okay. This much is part of the definition, pe'i. But I'm not sure
how much further we can go in laying down ground rules. After all,
we aim to legislate on what words and sentences mean, not on how
people should conceptualize the world....
--And.