WikiDiscuss

---

> On Apr 2, 2005 7:23 PM, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I find this discussion baffling, perhaps
> because
> > I do not see a problem with putting {no da}
> in
> > any place where it might fit to reflect the
> way
> > the world is,
>
> Hopefully nobody sees a problem with that.

Well, the presentation is pretty muddled, but
both & and n seem to say this at one point or
another. Hopefully it is just unclarity.

> > so {no da}ing the "lid" place of
> > {botpi} seems perfectly meaningful and often
> > involved in true descriptions of situations.
>
> Of course. Does anyone oppose using {no da}
> there?

Well again this seems to turn up even with
exactly this example.

> > But
> > the descriptions of{zo'e} (and blank, if you
> take
> > that as an abbreviation for {zo'e}) are a
> mess.
>
> I think it's the other way around: zo'e is a
> way of
> indicating blank when leaving it blank would
> change
> the meaning: {broda zo'e ko'a} is not the same
> as {broda ko'a}.

But surely not from {broda fe ko'a} (or whatever
place it is that {ko'a} occupies).

> > Before it was talked about as
> > an abbreviation for {zo'e}, the blank was
> just
> > that: no sumti given, no arguemnt specified.
>
> That's what both zo'e and blank are, as far as
> I understand.

Well, then we do not disagree at all so far, but
both of us seem to be at odds with both & and n.

> > What that amounted to was to be worked out
> > pragmatically: obvious, indifferent,
> unimportant,
> > unknown, secret — all these interpretations
> had
> > their uses.
>
> Yes.
>
> > To be sure, if what was skipped was
> > known to be {no da}, a good Gricean might
> object
> > to a speaker not mentioning that, if anything
> > might hang on it, but in the case of
> indifference
> > — and certainly of ignorance — {no da} is a
> > possible value to be discovered.
>
> I don't think {no da} can be skipped, either by
> blank
> or by {zo'e}. That amounts to skipping {na ku}.

Well, that is debatable, of course; it depends on
what you mean by "skip" or whatever word you
use. Would we really say of a person who did not
know that he lied when he left out a reference
that proved to be {no da}? Wold we even insist
that what he said was false? And what about the
cases where you don't give a damn with what or
whether the place is filled? As noted, it is nice
to say it if you know it and it makes a
difference.

> > If blank is really an abbreviation for
> {zo'e},
> > then (or {zo'e} the blank made visible)
> surely it
> > has this value (pragmatic, not semantic)
> "For
> > some reason, I am not telling you about
> things
> > that go in here" and usually this causes no
> > problems.
>
> Right. "What things" in the sense of what
> referents,
> not in the sense of what words. zo'e or blank
> don't
> stand for omitted words, they are the omision
> of any mention of the arguments, the things,
> that
> play the corresponding role in the
> corresponding
> relationship with the other (mentioned) things.
>
Well, I would say (indeed just did) they don't
stand for anything though they convey that I am
not going to tell you what goes there — whether
word or referent. If they stood for something
then I would have defeated my purpose in using
them (alrthough you would not get much more
information than you do now — what they stand
for, in particular). I am not clear just how
"omission of any mention" is different from
"omission of words for;" it is surely the words
that are omitted, not the things.