Re: Logical?

Mike S.:
> >> BTW, I think that Lojban descriptors are its greatest feature;
> >> they turn examples like the one you give into explicitly
> >> logical propositions.
> >
> >They're an improvement on English, but I prefer the 134 Livagian
> >determiners...
>
> Well, that seems a few more than I had planned :-)  I take
> it your determiners subsume quantifiers, deictics, etc?
No -- the quantifiers and deictics belong to other classes.

> One thing that I wonder about is the non-veridicality of
> <le> when <la> is available as a true non-veridical.  Was
> there ever any proposal to upgrade <le> to a veridical-
> specifier, or at least demand that the speaker use <le>
> only when he truly believes that the object fits the x1
> of the construction it tags?
As John said in his reply, there was formerly much more
emphasis on veridicality and much more confusion in the
understanding of the gadri.

<la> is not veridical because it is not descriptive either;
in <la X>, X is a mere phonological string, carrying no
implication that X describes the referent. But in <le X>,
X describes the referent. It's purpose is to identify the
referent, what matters is that it successful identify the
referent, not that it be true.

It's perfectly possible to have a +specific referent be
described veridically, but to do that you'd use a pronoun
plus a relative clause.

Sorry if this is a bit opaque. It's probably getting a bit
too technical for the Conlang list.

--And.