[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 11:13:48AM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 05:52:07PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
[...]
> > > Perhaps. Since UI can alter the truth value, then a UI can remove an
> > > existence claim in a sentence. (For certain UI, "UI da broda"
> > > does not assert existence of da.) Therefore, maybe a tergi'u can, too. In
> > > fact, I vaguely recall being told this many years ago, possibly on this
> > > very list, and I think from John.
> >
> > No, it does assert the existence of the da. The UI only changes
> > the speakers attitude about the assertion.
>
> One UI asserts the bridi is true and reflects on the speaker's attitude
> about it, while another UI casts the entire bridi into the realm of the
> imaginary.
> > No, it does assert the existence of the da. The UI only changes
> > the speakers attitude about the assertion.
> > > > However, to fit with the definition of things like lo, that just
> > > > doesn't make sense. {da poi cinri zo'u mi nitcu da} cannot be
> > > > consistently taken to not imply existence of the da---that's the
> > > > whole definition of da. So it extends to lo based on rules in
> > > > chapter 16. Le follows just as a rational extension, since it
> > > > describes something which exists (if you take le broda as da voi
> > > > broda, for example).
> > >
> > > Somehow I think John and Bob looked at "lo broda" and decided that it was
> > > very much like "da poi broda", not necessarily committing themselves to
> > > each and every logical consequence of the equation. They are free to
> > > contradict me, of course. Or perhaps only the "da voi broda" reading is
> > > problematic. It is radical to assert that le makes an existence claim.
> >
> > Chapter 16 commits to it. It is a baseline change to change it.
>
> You're assuming that the baseline includes all the logical consequences of
> its premises. I say there probably are logical contradictions floating
> around there. In any case, I would like to see lojbab and John say
> expressly that they are willing to accept every leselnibli of the equation
> of "lo broda = da poi broda".
Obviously the baseline must include everything it says or that can
be derived from it.
Contradictions, and they do exist (and several have been identified
(cf. the existential import discussion)), should be solved by the
BPFK.
> You seem to be saying that we need an entirely new gadri to avoid making
> existence claims everywhere. If that's what you believe, it's probably
> time to check your premises, because I think you are alone in that
> interpretation, although you cannot be blamed for misunderstanding the
> gadri!
I don't think I'm alone in that view. Check your jboske logs.
--
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:
binQhFVsEe9a7.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped