WikiDiscuss

---

> John E Clifford scripsit:
>
> > 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, so {no da}ing the "lid" place
> of {botpi} seems perfectly
> > meaningful and often involved in true
> descriptions of situations.
>
> That doesn't work. ta botpi no da means that
> nothing stands in a botpi
> relationship with that object; this sentence
> affirms nothing.

But you just said it affirms that nothing stands
in that relationship to ta. I suppose you mean
it is equivalent to no affirmative sentence
involving just these sumti and brivla. I didn't
say it did (or didn't mean it if that is how you
take what I said). I was rejecting the view that
{ta botpi fo no da} is somehow illegitimate
altogether and in particular is incompatible with
{ta botpi} tout court.

> > Thus, ordered n-1 tuples might be admitted in
> the extension of this new
> > predicate that are not part of any n tuple in
> the extension of the old,
>
> Yes, but which novel (n-1)-tuples are allowed
> and which are not? There
> is no simple universal answer to this, which is
> what makes default
> zihoing such a bad idea.

Well, the most that would be claimed is that the
one presented fits, which is in effect what is
claimed by any omission of places.

> > At various times and places {zo'e} is said to
> stand for the obvious
> > value (in the context, I suppose), to stand
> for anything other than
> > {no da} (and its equivalents) and {zi'o}, to
> indicate that it doesn't
> > matter what you put in there (?so long as it
> makes the sentence true?)
>
> These are different ways of formulating the
> same thing. When I assert
> "ta gerku", there is some dog breed (se gerku)
> to which that object belongs,
> I'm just not bothering to specify it. I simply
> exclude, on Gricean
> grounds, the notion that you're allowed to say
> "broda" when in fact
> what you mean is "noda broda".

Bad example. Every dog must be of some breed --
however broadly "breed" is defined. but many
places ({botpi4} the usual example, though I
suppose it could be argued it is not a good one)
are not essential and so {no da} does not affectr
some sense here. If you want to argue that all
places are essential by definition or some such,
then {no da} can never be correct, which seems
extreme. The point of leaving a blank is often
-- not always of course — that what goes in that
place makes no difference and thus even if
nothing goes there it should not affect the rest
of the sentence.

> If "ta gerku" is to be interpreted as "ta gerku
> zi'o", then we don't
> know what that means until we nail down just
> which objects are
> gerku be zi'o but not gerku be da.

See above. Note we have exactly the same problem
if we assert {ta gerku zi'o}, but the issue seems
never to be raised in that case.

> > 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.
>
> Not so. We do not want a world-3 in which
> seemingly affirmative claims
> turn out to be disguised versions of negative
> ones.
Whoa, Nelly. I didn't say {ta broda --} *means*
{ta broda no da}, i.e., makes a negative claim.
It merely (if this is what is going on) makes a
claim to which {ta broda no da} is irrelevant or,
at least, is not contradictory.

> > 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. And
> when it does cause problems,
> > well, everyone knows where to find {ma},
> though a lot of metaanswers
> > are possible: "I never even thought about
> that," for example.
>
> Just so.

Well, then, what is your problem?