[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 11:23 AM 1/11/03 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > > But we don't want to have to write that. I want to be able to say things
> > > like
> > > ro pavyseljirna cu blabi
> > > and have it be exactly the same as
> > > ro da zo'u ga da na pavyseljina gi da blabi
> > > and
> > > ro da poi pavyseljirna zo'u da blabi
> >
> >And so? You do, but I do not. I want "ro pavyseljirna cu blabi" to
> >count as false, not true, and ditto with "ro pavyseljirna cu zirpu"
> >At the common-sense level, there *aren't* any unicorns, white, purple
> >or otherwise. (I am not here talking about possible or fictional worlds
> >in which there are unicorns -- substitute "even primes > 2" if you like.)
>
> Can we solve the fictional worlds problem by allowing (mi'u da poi munje)
> or something of that sort in a prenex?
Or similar.
> I still think we can allow both your version and Jordan's version to hold
> using metalinguistic statements to indicate which philosophy is determining
> our truths
John and Jordan disagree about what {ro} should mean, not about which
philosophy determines their truths. Can we have metalinguistic statements
that tell us which set of word--meaning correspondences we are using
-- which dictionary the hearer should consult? If so, I suggest a
cmavo in COI, "COI brod", where "brod" names the dictionary. But then
people will want the official dictionary to list only one meaning, and
John and Jordan will disagree about which should be listed for ro.
--And.