Re: veridicality in English

[John Cowan <cowan@DRV.CBC.COM>]

la .and. cusku di'e

> > Likewise, if I say
> > (with Paul Revere) "The British [persons] are coming!", this cannot be
> > true unless it is the British who are coming.
>
> I believe this is a misreport of the facts of English. Some weeks
> ago I discussed an example (taken from McCawley): "the man
> standing over there drinking a martini" - here I'm not claiming
> that he's drinking a martini; I'm just describing him to help
> you identify who I'm talking about. Hence THE is nonveridical.

I grant that in McCawley's example, "the" is non-veridical, but your
example does not refute my example.  If, in fact, it was the
French who were coming, then Revere's statement would be false.
Hence "the" can be veridical or non-veridical depending on context.

> > Likewise, the use of "a" to indicate a new referent can override
> > any default veridicality.  The narrative use of  "A man went to the
> > store yesterday" does not require that the referent really is a man.
>
> ? I don't see what you mean.

There are two possible interpretations of "A man went to the store
yesterday".  In one sense, it is synonymous with "There is a man
who went" etc., and here "a" is veridical: if no man went to the
store yesterday, the statement is false.

But consider the following narrative:  "A man went to the store
yesterday.  The next day, he went to the office.  Later, the
man flew to Singapore."  In this case "a man" and "the man"
must be either both non-veridical or both veridical; I hold that
they are both non-veridical.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban