[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
>
> > I never said that either. "lo broda" can be used when only one
> > broda exists, for example, if the speaker doesn't *know* there's
> > only one
>
> No, even when the speaker knows there is only one. Lojban conflates
> specificity with veridicality, and you are only considering specificity as
> the reason to use lo
I & others see veridicality as somewhat incidental. The point is
that the function of the description in e-gadri is to identify the
underlying le'i, not to make a claim about the (members of the)
underlying le'i. So long as the description helps to identify
the le'i, it doesn't matter whether it's true. Sometimes I do
want to make a claim about the members of le'i, in which case
I can say {le du ku noi broda}, claiming the broda bit.
So the issue of whether you want the description to be identificatory
(= nonveridical) or claimed (veridical) arises only with e-gadri
(i.e. whether to say {le broda} or {le du ku noi broda}).
Veridicality shouldn't guide gadri choice.
--And.