[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 07:36 PM 12/28/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
Lojbab: > > > I simply cannot see the problem with: > > > > > > su'o da poi munje ku'o > > > ci de poi since > > > zi'e poi da vasru de > > > zo'u: > > > le ti tricyspi tarmi simsa > > > lu'o ci de poi gunma torni [vi da] > > > >The problem is that virtually any shape is the shape of some three > >snakes in some imaginary world. I don't deny that Grice can come > >to the rescue somehow, but He needs to be given a helping hand by > >what we actually say > > lo'ese'o since cimei > should mean the snake-threesome typicality that I internally generate lo'e broda has only properties that inherit to its typical instances;
Why?
being depicted by this picture is not such a property.
Being depictable in general is such a property. A picture is just a realization of that property.
I think that what is being lost here is the inherent meaning of pixra/picture/depict, which would also apply in general to sinxa/sign/symbol. "The map is not the territory" seems to be relevant here.
> > > Gricean salvator again. Don't read in any implicit quantifier where it
> > > makes no sense. And do no such reasoning, unless you insert all
> > > explicit quantifiers: {loi} by itself has no meaning, unless it's
> > > quantified
> >
> >CLL
> >{loi} = {pisu'o loi} & means "pisu'o loi"
> >{piroloi} means "piro loi" = "loi"
>
> Where is the latter? loi should have a default quantifier of su'o in
> CLL. There seems to be disagreement as to what it should be for lei
bare {loi} (the word) means "pisu'oloi" (the meaning)
By default, yes (but defaults are always subject to Gricean override
{piroloi} means "loi".
That is, "pisu'oloi" means "pisu'opiroloi".
This is not stated in CLL; it is deduced.
It is not clear how one would deduce it.
> >you:
> >{loi} ambiguous between {pisu'oloi}, "pisu'oloi", and {piroloi}, "loi"
> >
> >You are deviating from CLL. If CLL is to be changed here, better to
> >make bare {loi} mean "loi" (= "piroloi")
>
> That would change the default quantifier
Yes. If Nick wants to deviate from CLL then the sensible way to do
it is by making the default quantifier the one that is semantically
vacuous. That way, bare {loi} actually means "loi".
I think everyone is missing the point of specifying the default quantifiers. They are the broadest/vaguest form of the normal implicatures when numbers are elliptical, not "what the sentence always means".
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org