Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qobTm-00001DC; Sat, 24 Sep 94 21:05 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9602; Sat, 24 Sep 94 21:04:18 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9599; Sat, 24 Sep 1994 21:04:18 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8584; Sat, 24 Sep 1994 20:03:04 +0200 Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 14:04:44 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: Transparency / Opaqueness X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 951 Lines: 29 And: > > > It has been established (to my satisfaction, at any rate) > > > that LE/LO is +/-specific [Colin propounded this most lucidly]. > > > It only relates to definiteness in > > > that only +specifics can be +/-definite. > > > > Could you explain what is definiteness in this context, please. > > Oversimplifying a bit, it means that the addressee is able to > identify the referent (without asking 'which?'). > Compare: > I bought a book. > Which book? > - normal > I bought the book. > Which book? > - which is not normal, & implies a failure in communication. Great! I would add that -specific (lo) is always -definite, and that "which one?" always makes sense in such case (which is not to say that the speaker has to know the answer). So the meaning of "ko'a nitcu lo tanxe" is the one for which the question "which one?" makes sense. (Unless nitcu accepts abstractions only, in which case the problem doesn't arise.) Jorge