Re: veridicality trivial?

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la'o gy Bob Chassell gy cusku di'e
> jorge@phyast.pitt.edu cuska di'e
>
>     > In Lojban, an imperative is true iff the command is carried out.
>     Is that true? I thought imperatives didn't have truth values.
>
> This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Loglan.

Well, it wouldn't be my first :)

> *Every* predication
> is considered true or false.  This is fundamental to the language.

Maybe I wouldn't call a command (or a question for that matter) a
predication then. I don't see what purpose does it serve to say that
they have a truth value.

> In a context where `the' is the appropriate translation for {lo}:
>
>     ko ciska lo plipe
>
> Means "make it be true that `you eat the apple'"

Ok, I'll think of it as {ko citka lo pa plise} so that we fully agree. :)

> So the question is, is the following utterance true?
>
>     do ciska lo plipe
>
> If you do not eat the apple, it is false.  It can only be true if you
> do eat the apple.

We agree up to here.

> Hence, the imperative is true if and only if the
> command is carried out.

Hence? How does this follow? I don't mind calling it a true command, but
does that have any effect on anything?

> jorge@phyast.pitt.edu cuska di'e
>
>     My point of view is this:
>
>     Saying that {lo} is veridical is almost a triviality. Because of the
>     fact that it is non-specific, it needs to be veridical or we lose any
>     connection with meaning.
>
> This is why {lo} may be specific;

I'm lost again. I said nonspecific ==> veridical. How does this explain
that {lo} may be specific?

> {le} may be non-specific.

Since its quantifier is {ro}, it is hard to see how.

> Veridicality is an indicator of, i.e., a guide towards and away from,
> specificity (and definiteness).

This would be true (at least towards definiteness) if both {le} and {lo}
had quantifier {ro}. Then veridicality would make a finer distinction.
Since {su'o} makes {lo} grossly different from {le}, any distinction
that veridicality could make is practically irrelevant.

> It all fits together as is.

It certainly does. :)

Jorge