[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@...> wrote:
>
> On 9/22/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@...> 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.
And now more so, since the real world model is the real world, the one
in which we are writing, and I, at least, intend that Lojban shouls be
applicable to it.