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 m0r3uv1-00005bC; Sun, 6 Nov 94 01:53 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0880; Sun, 06 Nov 94 01:53:21 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0878; Sun, 6 Nov 1994 01:53:21 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1012; Sun, 6 Nov 1994 00:50:05 +0100 Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 18:17:10 -0500 Reply-To: "Robert J. Chassell" Sender: Lojban list From: "Robert J. Chassell" Subject: Re: context in Lojban To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <9411052044.AA15076@albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu> (message from ucleaar on Sat, 5 Nov 1994 20:43:25 +0000) Content-Length: 1931 Lines: 44 ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk cisku di'e replying to Bob Chassell: > ... 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. Not incredible at all. Surely, if the box I need is not in the "contextual range", then it is not `for real'. The practical reason one must include the "contextual range" with {lo} is that without it, Jorge is right in calling the veridicality issue trivial. On the other hand, when epistemology and context get included, then you have a tool that is different from other kinds of grammatical categorization (and I think powerful and important). My sense of Lojban style is that people will tend to use {lo} and {loi} more often than {le} or {lei} -- after all, people think of themselves and others as talking about `reality' (even of unicorns, in context), and shifting to a context in which you are *designating* something according the predication that follows the {le} or {lei} requires effort ---why not talk about the real thing itself? The categorizers {le} and {lei} lead to metaphor. Here is a predication, {le tanxe} (designated as a box, carton, trunk, crate}; I use it to designate this other thing (a stiff paper bag); this predication is `not for real' in our usual epistimolgy (the refered to entity is {lo dakli}), but I am conveying information about a quality of the designated entity. Robert J. Chassell bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu 25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725