[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (1) loi; (2) le v. la

Subject: Re: (1) loi; (2) le v. la
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 16:30:20 -0500
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu

>Perhaps I am biased by English, since, so far as I am aware, everything
>in English is +veridical. Consequently I may lack the appropriate
>intuitions about -veridical.

English is certainly NOT veridical.  Among other things, we use metonymy
heavily, and metonymy is inconsistent with veridicality.  "The White House
announced a new policy last night."  Houses do not announce.  And is the
policy really "new"?   Then there is the classic JCB example of ""le"
"That man is really a woman".  "That man" cannot be veridical if the statement
is true.

lojbab

Follow-Ups:
- Re: (1) loi; (2) le v. la
  - From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>

Prev by Date: Re: mu pemcrlimriki be fi la xorxe jambi gihe mibrocta
Next by Date: Re: cmavo hit list - lojbab responds
Prev by thread: Re: mu pemcrlimriki be fi la xorxe jambi gihe mibrocta
Next by thread: Re: (1) loi; (2) le v. la
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread