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 m0qocTO-00001DC; Sat, 24 Sep 94 22:09 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0195; Sat, 24 Sep 94 22:08:00 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0192; Sat, 24 Sep 1994 22:08:00 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0459; Sat, 24 Sep 1994 21:06:47 +0200 Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 20:07:02 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: specificity and metonymy X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sat, 24 Sep 94 09:56:57 D.) Content-Length: 732 Lines: 20 Bob C: > > It has been established ... that LE/LO is +/-specific > This is somewhat misleading. {le} may well be *less* specific to a > *listener* than {lo}. I meant 'specific' in the technical sense, which (I say clumsily in my ignorance) is that you don't find the referent by quantification; the referent is a constant. I do agree that metalanguage taken from everyday language can be misleading. Would anyone care to suggest a lojban term for specificity (of reference)? That would help. On the subject of metonymy: unless this is built in to the grammar, it is a matter of pragmatics, and if it is a matter of pragmatics it isn't, strictly speaking, pertinent to a debate on the semantic component of the grammar. --- And