Re: On {lo} and existence

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> > The reference of {ro broda} is determined with respect to an only-real
> > world. Unless it's {ro dahi broda}.
> Wouldn't that depend on the meaning of broda?

No.

> Suppose {broda} is "x1 is non-real". Are you saying that {ro broda} has
> no referents in an only-real world?

{broda} is "x1 is non-real in the relevant only-real world", so
{ro broda} refers to nothing in that only-real world, but to things
in other only-real worlds. What is important is that it doesn't
refer to something in the relevant only-real world that is in fact
real in that world, even if someone has imagined it is not real.

> Couldn't someone use that predicate in that world?

Certainly they could. One can refer to things in other only-real
worlds.

> I find {da'i} to be a useful cmavo, which modifies
> the meaning of a predicate, but I don't think it can be used in
> explaining the meaning of {lo}.

I gave in on that weeks ago.

> {lo broda} can be equivalent to
> {lo da'i brode} for appropriately chosen broda and brode.

Yes, that's true.

> Are all the referents of the relevant only-real world real?

I'm not sure what you mean by "referents of the ... world".
Everything in an only-real world is real. But in our local only-real
world we can refer to things in other only-real worlds.

> > How do we analyse the meaning of an utterance? One way is to state what
> > conditions would have to obtain in the world for the meaning to be true.
> Is stating those conditions any different from  reproducing the utterance,
> or perhaps rewording it in a more precise way? Consider again the utterance
> {da blanu}. How do we state the conditions that would have to obtain in
> the world for the meaning to be true? Wouldn't they be just that da blanu?

I remember being bemused as an undergraduate by: _Snow is white_ is
true iff snow is white. It took me years to see the point of it. It
tells you nothing about what's in the mind, but it does in principle
afford you a way of defining the meaning (e.g. as the set of worlds in
which snow is white). I refer you to a textbook on formal semantics;
I am the worst possible substitute for one, and the most honest thing
for me to do is to fall silent.

---
And