Message-Id: <m0r3snc-00005bC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 5 Nov 1994 16:40:58 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:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1598
Lines: 47

> Even if we agree that the set of ro broda contains only one member, I
> still don't think this makes "lo broda" specific.

For all purposes of truth values it does, I think.

> Consider the sentence:
>
>    The assassin of Archduke Ferdinand started the first World War.
>
> This may be interpreted in two ways. "The assassin of A.F." can be
> specific, in which case it means:
>
>    Gavrilo Princip (who, incidentally, is the assassin of A.F.)
>     started WW1.

Yes, "the assassin of A. F." has a specific referent, whether you know
his name or not.

> Or "the assassin of A.F." can be nonspecific, in which case it means:
>
>    Whoever is the assassin of A.F. started WW1.
>    Ex, x is assassin of A.F. & x started WW1.

if by "x is assassin of A.F." you mean "x is the one and only assassin
of A.F.", then I don't agree that it is nonspecific. If "is assassin of
A.F." can have more than one member, even theoretically, then it is
nonspecific, but it is not an example of {lo pa broda}.

Your two interpretations seem to distinguish between the cases where
being the assassin is important to starting the war and where it is
only marginal information, but in both cases the referent is uniquely
identified.

In any case, very few broda, if any, have only one member, so I don't
think {lo broda} means {lo pa broda} in more than a few very exceptional
cases.

> (This, incidentally, shows that if 'definiteness' is defined as the
> meaning of English 'the', then definiteness doesn't entail +specific.)

Who would want to define 'definiteness' like that, anyway. :)
>
> ---
> And
>

Jorge