Re: veridicality trivial?

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la bob. cusku di'e

>     ko ciska lo plipe
> 
> Means "make it be true that `you eat the apple'"
> 
> 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.  Hence, the imperative is true if and only if the
> command is carried out.

Neglecting the the/a distinction, this is indeed the rationale for saying
that an imperative is true if obeyed and false if not.  We project the
truth value of the underlying sentence up to the imperative.

> This is why {lo} may be specific; {le} may be non-specific.

It doesn't seem to be settled whether "lo" is specific, but "le" can't be
non-specific; "le" means "the one(s) I have in mind" and I have to have
something in mind, which is the definition of +specific.  The listener may
or may not be able to identify the object without asking me, hence
"le" can be +definite or -definite.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.