From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Mon Sep 6 16:37:33 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 6 Sep 1993 10:39:27 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 6 Sep 1993 10:39:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199309061439.AA04764@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7111; Mon, 06 Sep 93 10:37:49 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6455; Mon, 06 Sep 93 10:40:44 EDT Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 15:37:33 +0100 Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Re: TECH: Mark Shoulson waiting for a taxi To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: And answers jimc: ++++++++> > I'm blind to the issues in this debate because Lojban/Loglan articles > are not really defined so as to express the definite/specific distinction. > They're defined to express the in-mind vs. really-is vs. proper-name > distinction. An in-mind sumti can be specific or not, definite or not, > just as can be a really-is sumti or a named individual. What is an example of an in-mind non-specific sumti? If the distinction really is as you say, then why is it we don't use "lo" most of the time? After all, when we speak of "le broda", the referent usually really-is a broda, so "lo" should be the default, and "le" used only when the referent may not really-be a broda, even though we're describing it as one. I reckon the +/-specific distinction is much more useful & linguistically significant than this kind of figurative/literal distinction. >++++++++++ I completely agree with And. The fundamental distinction is in-mind vs really-is; but I don't believe in an in-mind non-specific, therefore, in-mind implies specific (which may then be definite or not). We may use 'lo' most of the time if we wish - this produces something with the correct truth value, but often the wrong pragmatics. Colin