From cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN Fri Aug 21 14:52:31 1992 Return-Path: Date: Fri Aug 21 14:52:31 1992 Message-Id: <9208211625.AA28147@relay2.UU.NET> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: gadri X-To: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: RO "le ratcu" would do for "the so-called rat" - the essential thing is that the speaker and the listener agrre to a >specific< that is being described as a rat, and not that it be a rat. "lo ratcu" is not necessarily non-specific; it IS veridical - it claims that whatever is described REALLY IS a rat, and is not, say, merely being described as one for convention or convenience (which might be the case with "le"). It is the implicit quantifier on "lo" that makes it indefinite AND non-specific - the outer "su'o" means that ANY thing meetin the description will do. If the outer quantifier is "ro", the result is quite definite: you are claiming about every single thing meeting the (possibly restricted by a relative clause) description. Similarly, if you use a relative clause with "voi", then you remain veridical on the main description, but the restriction is to a definite/specific subset. lojbab