Re: A question of semantics

John Cowan sikyal:

> JS Bangs scripsit:
>
> > Does Lojban encode a subjective/objective distinction? If so, is this
> > distinction meant to be culturally neutral? Because not all cultures have
> > a subjective/objective distinction, and even those that do can violently
> > disagree as to what kinds of knowledge belong in which category.
>
> I don't think so, unless I misunderstand what you mean by "subjective/
> objective distinction".  The distinction is "specific/nonspecific".  If I
> say "I see a [specific] cat", then you can't tell if this is true unless
> you know what I'm referring to by "a [specific] cat".  If you know, then
> you can tell if the sentence is true; whether the object really is a
> cat is helpful, but not determinative.  Possible English translations
> are "I see the cat" (specific and definite) and "I see a certain cat"
> (specific and indefinite).
Okay, this makes sense. The way you originally phrased it made me think
that Lojban attempted to encode subjective/objective distinction as
perhaps verifiable/non-verifiable.

Nonetheless, how does Lojban deal with controversey? How can I say "I see
[nonspecific] king", if I'm looking at someone whose claim to the throne
is contested? Or, even more dangerously, "I see [nonspecific] [Gg]od" ?

--
Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/blog

Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?"

And they answered, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground
of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our
interpersonal relationship."

And Jesus said, "What?"

Reply