[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On 9/25/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@hidden.email> wrote:
--- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@...> wrote:
>
> Yes. For definiteness, let's consider a simple model:
>
> The universe of discourse is a set with three elements:
> U={John, unicorns, elephants}.
I assume you mean "unicorn" and "elephant", otherwise there would be
more than three things in the universe.
Well, English is not the ideal metalanguage for Lojban, because of its obligatory number marking. But the sentence "There are three things in the domain of discourse: namely unicorns, elephants and John" is perfectly normal English, as far as I understand. The English plural form is not infrequently used with a single referent. Maybe if we could use Chinese (or even Lojban) as our metalanguage this issue wouldn't even arise. Unfortunately, I don't speak any Chinese.
You seem to be serious with this rather bad joke, so please explain
how "unicorns" can be singular other than as a typo. I agree that if
someone says {lo pavyseljirna} in a primary place, I take it that
there is at least one unicorn in his universe and adjust the universe
I am constructing accordingly (or get him to readjust his). But this
does not say anything about the critters John wants: in your mini
universe, John could want a hippopotamus or a centaur without changing
anything.
John could want those things in addition to wanting unicorns, but if he doesn't
want unicorns, then the model constructed in the discourse, which includes
{la djan cu djica lo pavyseljirna} as one of its true sentences, would not be a
very good model (even if internally self-consistent).
mu'o mi'e xorxes