[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.
Sorry, I was reading into your statement. You mean that his is how to
do the broad-scope specific reading, not the usual English one. I
agree with that. How, then, do you do the narrow-scope, generic reading?