[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> 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?
Because Nick decreed that as a solution to an otherwise highly damaging
logical problem.
> >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
Ergo Nicolaic lo'e is inappropriate 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
Where in CLL is that monstrous idea made canonical? I can't imagine
anything better calculated to give us the worst of both worlds.
> >{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
The deductive steps had been worked through in previous messages.
> > > >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"
Either have no default, or have a definite unglorked elliptizable
value. This halfarsed notion of default that you propose does nothing
more than interfere with Gricean processes, making communication
needlessly difficult. (Because it will be unclear whether the intended
interpretation is the one that is the official default or the one
that might be a little more likely in context.)
--And.