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 m0r392g-00005aC; Thu, 3 Nov 94 22:45 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8271; Thu, 03 Nov 94 22:46:04 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8268; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 22:45:57 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9653; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 21:42:43 +0100 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 20:40:47 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: context in Lojban To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 02 Nov 94 18:51:20 EST.) Content-Length: 2104 Lines: 45 Among the usual array of sensible remarks we are fortunate to receive daily from Jorge (zohonai), he says (replying to Bob Chassell): > > mi nitcu lo tanxe > > best translates as > > I require that which is really a box in the context understood by > > you and me (and whoever else is part of this conversation). > > If that's what it means, then we should fix the default quantifier of {lo}. > (I hope it doesn't mean that, because {lo} is very useful as the marker > for non-specific sumti. {le} already serves for the specific case.) > > > It is a bad habit to use `a' for {lo} and `the' for {le}. When > > contexts are known, {lo} is often, perhaps mostly more specific than > > {le}. > > This point should be clarified. If it is indeed the case that veridicality > is the only difference between {lo} and {le}, I can understand now why > people give it so much importance. If the difference is specificity vs > non-specificity (a much more useful distinction , IMHO) then the > veridicality issue becomes secondary and unimportant. I fully agree that this matter should be settled. The LE/LO distinction has traditionally been described in terms of veridicality, but Colin a while back, and Jorge recently have argued, with great cogency and clarity, that the distinction should be understood as one of specificity. I certainly support Colin & Jorge's view: veridicality is a rather unnecessary and uninteresting distinction, while specificity/ nonspecificity is absolutely indispensable. But since (as far as I am aware) Lojban Central has not pronounced on the matter, the discussions are ending up at cross purposes. So, please can we have some authoritative decision between the following two options: (a) LE/LO differ in terms of specificity & it should be acknowledged that veridicality is a red herring; (b) LE/LO differ in terms of veridicality, and are both specific, and nonspecificity must be expressed by other means (e.g. "da poi ..."). This matter presumably needs to be settled before solutions to the opacity problem are investigated. ---- And