[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 06:03:58PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la and cusku di'e
[...]
> [lo'e/le du'u]
> >I'll check my archives to try to locate the messages where this
> >was discussed. There were a few messages from me and xorxes
> >probably worth putting on the wiki, not because they decided
> >anything but because they spelt out all the issues and
> >considerations pretty clearly.
>
> I think it's these and follow-ups:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/message/595
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/message/618
Hrm, I only see followups from you, And, and Adam. If that's a
jboske consensus.... Yahoo's thread view completely sucks though
(why no tree-style view? Bah they suck), so I may be missing
replies...
Anyway, to me, it seems that the definition about lo'e broda refering
to a broda in a world[1] where lo'i broda is singleton is weak: there's
an infinity of worlds in which lo'i broda is a singleton set,
so this in effect would make lo'e (under this definition) more or
less meaningless (unless you just leave it all up to conversational
implicature, but then the analysis is essentially a nop).
Furthermore, who gets to say what set of statements are true about
this new singleton member? If it's not related to the set of true
statements about all the members in the real world, if there are
members in the real world[2], then the analysis is clearly wrong,
in my view, as it essentially says "lo'e means whatever the speaker
wants it to mean" (which actually might not be bad for le'e ;O ).
[1] the part about 'is exactly like this world in every other
respect' is pretty much impossible imho: if you change lo'i broda
to a singleton set, you've changed more than just the cardinality
of that set. For example, if [](x)(Fx -> Gx), different cardinalities
of {x: Fx} requires different cardinality of {x: Gx}. Furthermore,
you change the cardinality of any number of other sets due to the
assignment to truth values of predications about this new single
member of the lo'e-set.
[2] This, btw, is why I think that "lo'e pavyseljirna" (or other
empty thing) is either na'i, meaningless, or vacuously true no
matter what is said about it (probably all three). (On the other
hand, le'e pavyseljirna probably implies the speaker thinks something
is a pavyseljirna.).
--
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:
binHrvy2XKgaR.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped