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 m0r3Yfr-00005bC; Sat, 5 Nov 94 02:08 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0508; Sat, 05 Nov 94 02:08:15 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0505; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 02:08:14 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5947; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 01:05:05 +0100 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 23:54:44 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Cowan weighs in #1: specific, definite X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Fri, 04 Nov 94 16:34:12 EST.) Content-Length: 822 Lines: 19 & he weighs in with his usual laser-like perspicuity, saying: > DEFINITE (sometimes spelled "+definite"): a reference is definite if the > listener knows the referent. English "the" is usually definite. > INDEFINITE (sometimes spelled "-definite"): a referent is indefinite if the > listener does not know the referent. I did not originate this definition of definiteness, but it was me that stated it on Lojban list. So, I should add that (a) many linguists would consider it an oversimplification of definiteness (in the sense that _the_, the 'definite article' is definite), and (b) logicians, of the linguistic philosophical ilk, seem (to me) to use 'definite' in the meaning we are using 'definite' for. > (But then again, perhaps I am merely expressing my confusion.) Not unless I'm as confused as you. --- And