Re: le/lo

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>(a) What you say is valid, but so is an ontology that denies
>what you say, whereby the snowflake would merely be a xrula
>to a lesser extent than a pansy.

Hey we can take fuzzy truth to quite an extent, but there really are limits.
!
I can describe a snowflake as a flower, but it is in no way veridically a
flower by any *rational* ontology (irrational ones can claim anyt
hing they
want to).  Veridicality among other things allows us to divide the world in
to
things that are something and things that are not.  If two people cannot
agree to use the same ontology, then it becomes meaningless.  In any event,
we have "le" which allows us to describe an object without worr
ying about
veridicality.

In the absence of agreed upon ontologies, I think "le" and kin are the only
appropriate gadri.

>(b) they contradict universals of pragmatics

Tell me about other languages that have "+ veridical" as a  feature, and I
mightaccept it.  That is THE critical feature of "lo" - other features are
really offshoots from the choice of impliciy quantifier.  I would suspect
that veridicality is NOT a feature of language that has historically been
governed by pragmatics, as it probably has only been relevant in the
highly structured realm of syllogism and other logical discourse.

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.