veridicality in grammar

[bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU]

No part of English grammar directly concerns veridicality;
a part of Lojban grammar does.  This is a fundamental
difference between the two languages.

I am using `grammatical' here in the sense that fluent speakers of a
language will tell you whether an utterance is grammatical.  For
example, speakers of English will tell you that the following is
well formed:

    Green ideas sleep furiously.

They consider the following to be ill formed:

    *Sleep green furiously ideas.

Also, English speakers will tell you the following is ill formed:

     *Green ideas sleeps furiously.

Veridicality is not a criterion for whether English utterances are
grammatical.  The following is well formed, even if false in the
context of the current conversation:

    Tomorrow, Hannibal will cross the Alps.

Lojban is different.  The following is a grammatical use of {lo} if
and only if the cat seen is `for real' in the context of the current
conversation:

    .i la dgorj ca ca'a viska lo mlatu

However, the utterance is not grammatical if the cat is not `for
real'.  If the cat is not `for real', but is something you are
designating as a cat, then the grammatical categorizer is {le}.


An English speaker will tell a child or other learner who says

    *George see a cat.

to say instead:

    George sees a cat.

In the singular, the verb `see' requires an `s'.

A Lojban speaker will tell a child or other learner who says

    .i la dgorj ca ca'a viska lo mlatu

to say

    .i la dgorj ca ca'a viska le mlatu

when the cat is not `for real' in the context of the communication.

In spoken English, you appear to need little, if any, information
regarding context to determine whether

    *George see a cat.

is ill formed.  (It goes without saying that you need contextual
information to determine whether the written expression is well
formed, since the written form does not indicate stress or pauses
between words.  The contextual information is often provided by
default presumptions, as in the first example of "*George see a cat.")

Regardless of how much context, if any, is required to determine
whether an English sentence is well formed, you clearly need to know
the context to determine whether {lo} or {le} is correct in a Lojban
utterance.  After all, in some contexts, unicorns are `for real'; in
others, mere fiction.

(It will be interesting to find out whether fluent Lojban speakers feel
more effort is required of them to categorize between `designated as'
and `for real' than English speakers feel is required of them to
categorize between `singular' and `plural'.)

    Robert J. Chassell               bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us
    25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road     bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   (413) 298-4725