[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On 9/26/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@hidden.email> wrote:
My point is that there is nothing in the the model containing only
John and elephabts to keep {la djan djica lo pavyseljirna} (though
that is not the way I would write it in this case) from being a truth
*of the model*
It can be a truth *compatible with* the model, if that's what you mean,
but it can't be a truth *of* the model if {lo pavyseljirna} has no referent
in the domain of discourse of the model. We can easily add the referent
of {lo pavyseljirna} to the domain, and the sentence {la djan djica
lo pavyseljirna} to the theory of the model, thus expanding our model,
and the new model would be consistent with the original one. But the
new model is not a model containing only John and elephants in its
domain of discourse, the new model contains unicorns too.
> If there are no unicorns in the domain of discourse of the model, then
> {no da pavyseljirna} could be a true sentence of the model, I agree, but
> {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} I would take as uninterpretable in the model.
OK. What does that do to sentences that contain that expression?
They are uninterpretable in that model. The usual move will be to change the model (incorporating unicorns to its domain of discourse) so that the sentence becomes interpretable.
In discourse analysis, "want" marks a relation between a person and a world (or two -- we can argue that), which world(s) are subordinate to the original world, i.e., what is in or happens in the outer world affects the subordinate world but the opposite is not the case -- beyond the holding or failing of the want condition.
That would seem to work as the analysis of "... wants that ...", as well as any other propositional attitude. In this case the model will have a domain of discourse which includes a person and a proposition.
So, the world with only John and an elephant, "John wants a unicorn" is true id, among the wishworlds (subordinate models) generated by John are some that involve having a unicorn and satisfaction (and maybe none that involve one but not the other).
If you are happy interpreting that sentence as involving hidden
propositions, that might work. I prefer an analysis that does not
make use of hidden things. For me all that the interpretation of
{la djan djica lo pavyseljirna} requires is a domain of discourse
with (at least) two members, John and unicorns. The sentence
can then be added as a true sentence of the model. It does not
entail that {lo pavyseljirna cu zasti} must also be a true sentence
of the model, but then why should it? I do not accept that
{ro da zasti} has to be a true sentence of every model.
mu'o mi'e xorxes