WikiDiscuss

pc:
> But, whether or not {lo broda} ends up
> being a constant, it starts as a description, and
> that can be unmet: {lo pavyseljirna} has no
> referent but is perfectly acceptable in other
> ways in the language — or do you just shiift to
> another domain when such expressions occur, even
> without other indications of the shift?

I think {lo pavyseljirna} usually does have a referent,
and so for example {lo pavyseljirna cu se ranmi} is true.

> There are
> also accidental shifts, given that there are
> brodas and brodes you might expect there to be
> {lo broda poi brode}, but there may not be.

In that case, you wouldn't be talking about anything when
you use {lo broda poi brode}. A {ki'a} or {na'i} reaction
might be appropriate. But I think in such cases there will
at least be a postulated referent, which is something
referrable.

> Grammar is pretty free from facts, but truth is
> not.

Lojban grammar certainly allows the construction of meaningless
bridi (as does any human language, I suppose).

> OK (aside from the part about cit being a
> constant — that still gives problems), you use a
> gappy or many-valued truth system, with the extra
> piece of space being "meaningless" (and deopping
> out of the overall valuation if the result vcan
> be otherwise determined?)

I don't understand the question. Could you give an example?

> If {lo broda} had many referents, it would be
> many things, but, given the underlying logic of
> Lojban, it cannot have many referents.

I guess "the underlying logic of Lojban" is something
accessible to you but not to me, so it is pointless to argue
that point.

> > > I didn't realize that I had said that {lo'i
> > > broda} had a different referent from {da poi
> > > selcmi be lo broda} (I assume that this has a
> > > built in namely-rider so that it has a
> > referent
> > > at all), only different from {lo selcmi be lo
> > > broda}, unless you are identifying them as
> > well,
> > > which seems against something you said
> > elsewhere,
> > > presumably on another topic altogether.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean. What I said was:
> >
> > > > The bit you were presenting until recently,
> > > > where {lo'i broda}
> > > > and {lo pa selcmi be lo broda} have
> > different
> > > > referents, is
> > > > not something I would want.
> >
> And I repeat, where did I say that as opposed to
> saying that {lo'i broda} and {lo selcmi be lo
> broda} have different referents? I can't find it.

You may be reading {lo pa selcmi} as {da poi selcmi}, that's
the only explanation I can think of to explain this exchange.

Anyway, how's this:

(1) mi cuxna fi ko'a goi lo'i karda
I choose from a set of cards.

(2) mi cuxna fi ko'e goi lo selcmi be lo karda
I choose from a set of cards. (Ontologically different one from
before, even if in the end it consists of the same cards.)

(3) ko'a na du ko'e

Therefore:

(4) mi cuxna fi su'o re da
I choose from at least two sets.

I disagree with (3), of course, so for me (4) does not follow from (1)
and (2).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com