Message-Id: <m0qnsu6-00005YC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 22 Sep 1994 18:40:38 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Transparency / Opaqueness
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Thu, 22 Sep 94 10:00:04 P.)
Content-Length: 1353
Lines: 36

La Veion:
>   (a)     I'll read two books. [any two]
>   (b)     I'll read two books, this and that.
>
> ((a) is the opaque case and (b) the transparent one)
> and put it into Lojban, I get
>
>   (a) mi ba tcidu re [lo] cukta
>   (b) mi ba tcidu le [bi'u] re [lo] cukta ku ne ti .e ta
>
> In (b) I think we must use {le} as I clearly indicate
> two quite specific things in spite of the English surface
> structure.
> [....]
> This way things would fit within the existing framework and
> we would need no new cmavo (Jorge's xe'e). Secondly we could
> crossreference {le/lo} quite nicely to Quine and remove even
> more of the correspondence to the English {the/a} (or the
> Indo-European definite/indefinite articles in general).

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.
I think that we do need a new cmavo & that LO/LE isn't
the same as transparent/opaque. You seem to miss the ambiguity
of (a).
  I'll read any two books. - pick two items freely from the
     set of all books, & it is asserted that I'll read them.
  There are two books I'll read. - examine every book & if
     you find at least two that I'll read, the assertion is
     true.

I hope I didn't misunderstand you.
-----
And