Message-Id: <m0r5393-00004zC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 8 Nov 1994 15:51:10 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: context in Lojban
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  <199411052044.AA02282@nfs1.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Nov 5,
              94 08:43:25 pm
Content-Length: 3399
Lines: 78

la .and. cusku di'e

> replying to Bob Chassell:
> > 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
> >
> >     .i mi nitcu lo tanxe
> >
> > is *specific* as to which box, and
>
> So even if there exists a real box that you do need, but you need neither
> of the boxes in the "contextual range", then the utterance is false
> - according to you. I am incredulous that this really is the official
> line on LO.

It isn't.  "lo" binds the universe of discourse, but not the local context.
"lo -unicorn" may refer in a universe where there are unicorns, but it
would be absurd to suppose that "lo gerku" has no referent for me, merely
because there are no dogs in the room (or, I suppose, the building) which
I currently am in.

> >     .i mi nitcu le tanxe
> >
> > is *not* specific as to which box.  This is basic to Lojban.
>
> I don't see how it can't be specific if the referent of "le tanxe" is
> in-mind. To get the meaning you want, I think "suho le tanxe" would
> be better: "at least one member of the set {entity1, entity2}, which
> I describe as boxes".

Correct.  In the context Bob describes, "mi nitcu le tanxe" may be
-definite (listener doesn't know which box), but it's still +specific
(speaker is the authority on which thing is meant) and -veridical
(thing needn't really be a box).

> > {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.  Hence, using English language inspired jargon such as
> > `+specific' is easily misleading.
>
> "Specific" is of course an English word, but it has a technical sense
> which is the sense I hope we are all intending, and this sense is
> relevant for language in general, not just for English in particular.
> Your description above of "le" fits the technical definition of "specific".

Agreed.   The whole point of my definitions of "specific" and "definite"
was to avoid problems about what the speaker knows, the listener knows, the
speaker believes the listener knows, etc.  {ke'u}:

        specific - the listener's intention determines the referent
        definite - the listener knows the referent

> > {le} is *not necessaily* +specific
> > until *both* speaker and listener have whatever is designated in mind
> > jointly.
>
> This is at least confusing, and maybe inaccurate. Specificity holds
> between the lexical expression and the proposition derived from the
> lexical expression: if the proposition in the mind of the speaker
> fails to get through to the addressee, this is a failure of communication,
> but doesn't mean the lexical expression was not specific.
> Put more simply, specificity has to do with reference, not with
> communication.

This is a matter of definitions, but I agree that we need common definitions
here if we are to achieve understanding.

> A clear answer. If this is indeed the official line then Jorge, Colin,
> I, and, I think, Iain, are simply wrong about the proper meaning of LO.
> [Is this therefore USA vs rest-of-the-world?]

It is not the official line, but you may still be wrong.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.