Re: Logical?

Mike S. scripsit:

> 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?
No, although it's probably not Gricean to do otherwise.
The le/lo distinction was originally said to be about veridicality
exclusively, and it was And primarily, with help from Jorge
Llambias, who pushed it toward being about specificity.

> >And more generally, if you don't say what you mean, and
> >trust your addressee to infer what you mean from what
> >you say, how can you ever guarantee that your addressee
> >correctly understands you?
>
> Exactly.
Lojban has a number of explicit markers that indicate that
what you say is not what you mean, notably "pe'a" which allows
you to use "heart burn" to represent indigestion.

> The best one can do
> is hope that the product of such a design will be of such a
> well-executed nature, and the speakers it attracts of such
> a temperament, that the speakers themselves will feel
> compelled to preserve its purity.
As does seem to be the case, for the most part, in the Lojban
community.

--
John Cowan <jcowan@...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_