Message-Id: <199309011551.AA06763@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 16:36:27 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Mr Andrew Rosta <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      TECH: specifity & definiteness
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Wed,
              01 Sep 93 09:36:57 A.) <9309011153.AA93702@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk>
Status: O

> > > 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.

I quite agree: specificity is distinct from definiteness. Specific
referents may or may not be definite. Definiteness is non-truth-
conditional, so appropriate for a .UI cmavo, whereas specificity
affects truth conditions, so I would be inclined to treat le v.
lo as specific v. non-specific (though I do not understand what the
distinction between le/lo officially is). I don't, incidentally,
see that bihu/bihunai corresponds to definite/indefinite - or
rather, I do see that it doesn't.

> > 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.

This is my understanding too.
-------
mihelahola.Andla.