Message-Id: <m0r3qkX-00005bC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 5 Nov 1994 14:28:39 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: context in Lojban
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 3128
Lines: 77

la'o gy Bob Chassell gy cusku di'e

> So as not to confuse anyone with jargon like `+specific' and
> `-specific', remember, if the context is that there are a real and a
> non-real box in front of us, and our contextual range is constrained
> to those boxes, then

>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. What I don't agree with is that in any normal context
will the universe of discourse be so drastically reduced. If there is
only one real box in front of us, I don't ignore the existence of the
myriad other boxes not in the room that populate the usual universe of
discourse.

>     .i mi nitcu lo tanxe
>
> is *specific* as to which box, and

only in the case that {lo tanxe} means {lo pa tanxe}. In that case, I agree
to call it specific. If it means even {lo re tanxe} = "at least one of the
two things that really are boxes in our universe/context", then it is
non-specific once again.

>     .i mi nitcu le tanxe
>
> is *not* specific as to which box.  This is basic to Lojban.

Yes, that one is always specific. It means "every one of the things that
I'm choosing to describe as a box". It may not be easy for the listener
to know what that is, in which case it is indeterminate in John's
terminology, but as far as the speaker is concerned, which box it is
is clear.

> In this case, a reasonable English translation by either speaker or
> listener for
>
>     .i mi nitcu lo tanxe
> is
>     I need the box.

Yes, in the case where {lo tanxe} is {lo pa tanxe}. I really can't think of
many contexts where that would be the case.

> whereas a reasonable English translation *by the listener* for
>
>     .i mi nitcu le tanxe
> is
>     I need a box.

Translation by the listener? The listener could certainly report that

        ko'a nitcu da poi lu le tanxe li'u cmene ke'a ko'a
        Koha needs something that koha calls "le tanxe".

That is the information the listener got. A translation is not a reporting
of the information obtained. A translation gives a phrase in English that
as close as possible corresponds to what the speaker would have said had
he been speaking English instead of Lojban. I believe the closest translation
of {mi nitcu le tanxe} is "I need the box". In both Lojban and English,
this doesn't guarantee that the listener knows which box the speaker is
talking about, but that's not what we mean by specific anyway.

> {le} is specific *in the mind of* the speaker.  It is not necessarily
> specific to the listener, until the speaker explains more to the
> speaker.

This is strange. You seem to be saying that the truth value of a claim
could be different for speaker and listener. This is because truth values
depend crucially on specificity. (In fact, we are using "specific" in
different ways. I'm using the definition posted by John.)


Jorge