Message-Id: <m0r474Z-00005bC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 6 Nov 1994 12:42:12 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: context in Lojban
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 05 Nov 94 16:40:58 EST.)
Content-Length: 2403
Lines: 66

> > 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.

Not if +/-specific is a difference in how you go about evaluating
the truth value: for +specific you find the in-mind referent, whereas
for -specific you existentially quantify over (in this example)
a one-member set.

> > 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.

It's not specific if I could not in any way identify the assassin;
if I in no sense "know who assassinated A.F." then the referent of
"the assassin of A.F." is nonspecific.

> > 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.",

That's what I meant.

> then I don't agree that it is nonspecific.

I think this shows that we have a slightly different understanding of
specificity, with the difference showing up with singleton categories.
The difference probably doesn't make any odds as far as our arguments
for the proper semantics of LE & LO goes.

> 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.

No: it's not a question of marginality, it's a question of identifiability.
If I weren't married, but knew I was going to be, then I could talk
about "my first wife", meaning "the first person that I'll be married
to", without knowing who this person was going to be. This would be
nonspecific.

If you don't agree, then I think this shows we have a slightly but
unproblematically different understanding of what specificity is.

> 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.

Agreed.

----
And