Message-Id: <m0qzvY8-00006tC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 25 Oct 1994 17:53:12 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: "any"
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 3161
Lines: 86

la kris cusku di'e

> I've forgotten some of the arguments that convinced me that allowing "lo" to
> be opaque was a bad idea.

An example:     mi klama lo zarci

Does it mean "There is at least one store such that I go to it" (transparent)

or "I go to a store (but there isn't any one store that has the property that
I am going to it)" (opaque) , something like "I go shopping".


> But anyway, here goes: as you may have noticed I just LOVE making little
> tables to help me understand things:
>
> T=transparent, O=opaque, V=veridicial, NV=non-veridical
>
>          Jorge's system                    Lojbab's system
>          --------------                    ---------------
> T/V      lo broda                          da poi broda
> T/NV     le broda                          le broda
> O/V      xe'e lo broda OR (.ai/ko + lo)    lo broda
> O/NV     xe'e le broda OR (.ai/ko + le)    ??

That's not my system!!!   :)

(I don't think non-veridicality is the defining property of {le}, so I will
switch to S=specific, NS=non-specific.)

        Jorge's real system
        -------------------
S       le broda
NS/T    lo broda
NS/O    xe'e lo broda - lo'e broda

The dichotomy transparent/opaque can only occur in the non-specific case.
In the specific case, the quantifier is always {ro}, and I can't give any
interpretation to an opaque {ro}.

NOTE 1: {le} with any quantifier other than its default {ro} becomes
non-specific. {re le broda} means "two of the broda", but it is not
specified which two. {le re le broda} is specific again ("the two of the
broda") and its quantifier is of course {ro}.

NOTE 2: {lo} with quantifier {ro} becomes specific, at least for all
practical purposes, since a claim made about every possible broda leaves
no doubt about to which specific broda the claim applies.

[Also, I'm not sure, but I think the distinction Lojbab makes between
{da poi broda} and {lo broda} is not one of transparent vs. opaque but one
of existence-claimed vs. not existence-claimed. That would mean that the
quantifier of {lo broda} changes to something other than {su'o} when no
broda exists, but {lo broda} means the same as {da poi broda} when at
least one broda exists.]

> I haven't heard yet if Lojbab agrees with Jorge about the opacity of ko,
> .ai, and some other attitudinals,

I'd like to know, too.

> and I haven't actually seen Jorge use
> "xe'e le" but I'm extrapolating.

I would define {xe'e le} as {su'o xe'e le}, because as I said {ro xe'e}
makes no sense to me.

> I guess I'm leaning towards Lojbab's system because 1) opaqueness crops up a
> lot and so Lojbab's is more Zipfy,

So to say "I go to a store", you'd say {mi klama da poi zarci}? I don't think
making opaqueness the default is more Zipfy (but I don't think that's what
Lojbab proposes either).

> and 2) in my personal usage veridiciality
> seems to correlate with opacity.

Examples?

> But how does Lojbab handle an opaque non-veridicial reference?  Could such a
> thing actually be useful?

If you mean opaque specific, I can't think of anything like that. Opaqueness
is either a subclass of non-specificity, or it is a third category by itself.

Jorge