From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Sep 1 04:39:15 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 1 Sep 1993 04:39:15 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 1 Sep 1993 04:39:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199309010839.AA17690@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5967; Wed, 01 Sep 93 04:37:40 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4581; Wed, 01 Sep 93 04:40:31 EDT Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 09:36:57 BST Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: Iain Alexander Subject: Re: TECH: Desperately seeking [properties] X-To: cowan X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: cu'u mi > > If we _have_ to use {le} or the equivalent when we have > > someone or something specific in mind, then we _can't_ also > > have the additional implication that I expect you to know > > which I mean. cu'u la djan. kau,n. > Why not? If I don't have something specific in mind, then I certainly > can't expect you to know which I mean, but I don't see the problem with the > converse. I was trying to say that it can't always imply that I expect you to know what I mean, because there are situations where I know _exactly_ who or what I mean, and I have no way of knowing how much information I'll have to give you to enable you to identify a specific referent. I can only express the fact that I mean something specific by using {le} (or something equivalent, but _not_ {lo}), therefore {le} on its own cannot also imply that I necessarily expect you to know what I mean. In context (including possibly extralinguistic context) it might do. In conjunction with a {bi'unai} or some other modifier it might do. But not on its own. > Well, actually "zo'e" does well there, since "zo'e" and "le co'e" mean much > the same thing. Both of them refer to something specific-but-unspecified. > There is the difference that "le co'e" keeps the force of "le": one or more > individuals, probably not a set or mass. I'm not sure I believe this. I thought that {zo'e} was totally ambiguous, and could be specific or non-specific, universally or existentially or exact-numerically quantified, or any other (censored) thing. {le co'e}, on the other hand, means something specific which I have in mind, but have not actually described. > If you have not mentioned any princesses, > or any individuals who might reasonably be described as such, the "bi'u" > is superfluous. Not quite pe'i - you also have to take the extralinguistic context into account. The interesting thing is that lojban is splitting the semantic space up differently from English. "I'm looking for a princess" can be either {mi sisku lo ka nolraixli} or {mi sisku tu'a le [bi'u] nolraixli}, depending on whether I have someone specific in mind. Conversely, {mi sisku tu'a le nolraixli} can be either "I'm looking for the princess" or "I'm looking for a princess", depending on whether I expect you to know who I mean (optional {bi'unai}) or not (optional {bi'u}). co'o mi'e .i,n.