[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On 9/22/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@hidden.email> wrote:
--- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@...> wrote:
>
> There is no model in which {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} is true
> and {da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi djica da} is false.
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?
No, that's not what I mean. There is no broad-scope/narrow-scope
distinction if {lo pavyseljirna} is a referring term. The distinction
is only possible when dealing with a quantified term, then the quantifier
can be outside or inside some other operator. With my interpretation
of {lo pavyseljirna}, the two readings you mean will not correspond to
two scope possibilities within the same model, but to two different models
altogether. (Of course the two-scope distinction is still available when
using quantified terms and some other scope operator for the quantifier
to interact with, it is not available when using just the simple referring
term.)
As for "the real world model", what exactly is it?
I would define *a* real world model as any model such that:
(R1) The real world is a member of the domain of discourse.
(R2) There is a referring term (say {le zasti munje}) whose referent
is the real world.
(R3) For every member x of the domain of discourse, if x exists in
the real world and the referring term <x> of the object language refers
to x, then the sentence {<x> zasti le zasti munje} of the object language
is a true sentence of the model.
(R4) For every member x of the domain of discourse, if x doesn't exist
in the real world and the referring term <x> refers to x, then the
sentence {<x> zasti le zasti munje} is a false sentence of the model.
With that definition, there are lots of different real world models,
depending on what the universe of discourse contains.
If we want to identify one special real world model as "*the* real world
model", we might define it as something like this:
*The* real world model is a real world model such that:
(R5) Every thing that exists in the real world is a member of the
domain of discourse.
(R6) Every member of the domain of discourse exists in the real
world.
But the real world model so defined is not a very useful model for
most discourses. It is too wide in one dimension (the domain
contains lots of things that are totally irrelevant to most discourses)
and it is too narrow in another dimension (the domain lacks many
things that are often required in a discourse).
Is that what you mean by "the real world model"?
mu'o mi'e xorxes