Forum: WikiDiscuss

Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed

posts: 2388


> John Cowan wrote:
> >xod scripsit:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Do you realize that in usage, people usually
> use "noda" to mean "lacks a
> >>lid", and not this contradiction of the
> entire sentence which you are
> >>performing, which generally results in
> something meaningless (applicable
> >>to camels, stars, etc)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >So much the worse for usage. This is core
> logical-language stuff.

well, it is the core of the logical part but not
necessarily of the language part. We blithely
toss around this is equivalent to that and so on
and that is probably tri\ue in a pure;y semantic
sense. However, that does not mean that the two
sentences are approriately used in the same
contexts; they may well carry different pragmatic
freight: different implicatures or
presuppositions etc. So, using {ta botpi no da}
may quite reasonably be useful in discussions of
lidless bottleq, since it implicates that ta
would be a botpi but for its lack of lid. Some
of the equivalent forms do not carry this
sugggestion and others carry others. We don't
really want to get too narrow here — though we
do not want to violate logic either, of course.


The original document is available at