[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:31:20PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Jordan DeLong asked:
> > what is the truth value of {ro pavyseljirna cu broda}...?
> If our discussion universe contains unicorns, the statement has meaning.
>
> If the listener is uncertain whether the discussion universe contains
> unicorns, it's a clue that the speaker thinks they do.
I think this is what Nick was suggesting about implicature, but
right now we're discussing a hypothetical universe (or even a real
one like our own) where there are no unicorns. We should still
have a truth value for both {ro da zo'u da ganai pavyseljirna gi
blabi} and {ro pavyseljirna cu blabi}.
> If it's understood that the discussion universe does NOT contain unicorns,
> this is a meaningless statement.
Why give up and call it meaningless when we can use our formal rules
to make it mean something:
ro pavyseljirna cu blabi ==
naku naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi ==
naku su'o pavyseljirna naku blabi
All we're saying is that there aren't any unicorns which aren't
white. Which is *certainly* meaningful.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binznfM3QEhf_.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped