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 m0r3V1R-00005bC; Fri, 4 Nov 94 22:14 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6483; Fri, 04 Nov 94 22:14:16 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6478; Fri, 4 Nov 1994 22:14:16 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2799; Fri, 4 Nov 1994 21:10:51 +0100 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 13:47:22 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: context in Lojban To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1917 Lines: 48 la lojbab cusku di'e > My opinion is that the status quo for Lojban is that > LO is +veridical > LE is -veridical > There is secondary usage that LE is +specific, because specificity is implied > in having an in-mind object that is not necessarily veridical. There is no disagreement with any of this (except for the word "secondary"). The question is whether {lo} is non-specific or not. You seem to agree that it is non-specific: > LO being usually contrasted with LE, it therefore has fallen on LO to reflect > non-specificity. That's all I wanted to hear. From my point of view, the veridicality property is almost a consequence of the specificity. Non-specific implies +veridical, so if {lo} is non-specific, it has to be veridical. Specific doesn't imply -veridical, but veridicality becomes relatively unimportant for specific sumti, and I'm very much in favour of not requiring that {le} be veridical. > But a non-specific, non-veridical should not be expressed > with LO. Could you give an example of a non-specific, non-veridical? In any case, the disagreement was whether a +specific, +veridical could be expressed with {lo}. > It was my suggestion > to pc that "lo" be contrasted with "le" and thus usable with individuals > out of that veridical set if appropriate, ENABLING non-specific selection > from the veridical set to be the default, because "all broda" statements > really aren't that useful in language when people are really concerned with > truth values. Hence the outer quantifier "su'o". I fully agree with that. Key words: "non-specific selection". > Now if people convince pc and Nick and others that this design is wrong > logically, then we may have to redefine things. The design you describe is the one I'm arguing for. I don't want to redefine anything. In particular, I don't want to change {su'o} as the default quantifier of {lo}, which makes it non-specific. Jorge