[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On 9/22/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@hidden.email> wrote:
You wrote -- in the piece here omitted -- that a certain model (the real world and maybe the numbers only ones) did not count, since in them the first and second sentence were alike false (or perhaps meaningless).
Yes.
The point was that there are models in which the first sentence is true (the real world for one) and the second false.
And that is what I was denying.
There is no model in which {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} is true
and {da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi djica da} is false.
In particular, in the "real world model", i.e. the model where
the domain of discourse coincides with the extension of {zasti},
{mi djica lo pavyseljirna} is uninterpretable (or false) because
there is no member of the domain of discourse that could be
the referent of {lo pavyseljirna}. So the "real world model" is not
an example of a model where the first sentence is true and the
second false.
I find you interpretation of Lojan bizarre.
OK. mu'o mi'e xorxes