From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Nov  5 16:07:52 1994
Message-Id: <199411052107.AA02878@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Sat Nov 5 16:07:52 1994
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: context in Lojban
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 05 Nov 94 14:28:39 EST.)
Status: RO

Jorge replying to Bob
> From what you say, by contextual range you seem to mean something like
> universe of discourse, i.e. all that exists for the purposes of the claim.
> If that is the case, then {lo tanxe} means {lo pa tanxe}, i.e. at least
> one of the one box that exists, or what is the same, every one of the
> one box that exists. I agree that in this case {lo tanxe} is for all
> purposes specific.

Even if we agree that the set of ro broda contains only one member, I
still don't think this makes "lo broda" specific. Consider the sentence:

   The assassin of Archduke Ferdinand started the first World War.

This may be interpreted in two ways. "The assassin of A.F." can be
specific, in which case it means:

   Gavrilo Princip (who, incidentally, is the assassin of A.F.)
    started WW1.

Or "the assassin of A.F." can be nonspecific, in which case it means:

   Whoever is the assassin of A.F. started WW1.
   Ex, x is assassin of A.F. & x started WW1.

(This, incidentally, shows that if 'definiteness' is defined as the
meaning of English 'the', then definiteness doesn't entail +specific.)

---
And