Re: veridicality in grammar

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

Bob Chassell says:

> 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}.

Are you saying that a sentence in Lojban is not grammatical if it's
false?

The sentence you wrote is meaningful independent of the circumstances
in which it is used, so I don't see why it would be called 'not
grammatical'.

Its meaning depends on the circumstances in as much as the identification
of the one named la dgorj depends on the circumstances.

Its meaning also depends on what we understand by the predicate 'mlatu'
(and also 'viska', of course). Unless we're in an unusual situation
(say a logic class, where the teacher draws a Venn diagram with three
cats inside and says that this is the set of all cats, then within
that universe of discourse, the set of cats has cardinality three),
unless the situation is unusual, the set of mlatu has many many
members, and the sentence says that something is true about at least
one of them, without saying which one.

If the claimed relationship doesn't obtain (nice bit of jargon there)
then the sentence is false, not ungrammatical.

The meaning of {la dgorj ca ca'a viska le mlatu}, on the other hand,
depends on what we identify as the referent of {le mlatu}. It is not
a claim about all cats, it is a claim about the thing(s) that the
speaker is calling {le mlatu}.

Both sentences are grammatical, whenever they're used. In some
circumstances the claim that they make will be true, in some it will
be false.

Jorge