Message-Id: <m0r3nih-00005bC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 5 Nov 1994 10:52:15 -0500
Reply-To:     "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: context in Lojban
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <9411042345.AA15879@albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu> (jorge@phyast.pitt.edu)
Content-Length: 2396
Lines: 65

So as not to confuse anyone with jargon like `+specific' and
`-specific', remember, 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

    .i mi nitcu le tanxe

is *not* specific as to which box.  This is basic to Lojban.

In this case, a reasonable English translation by either speaker or
listener for

    .i mi nitcu lo tanxe
is
    I need the box.

whereas a reasonable English translation *by the listener* for

    .i mi nitcu le tanxe
is
    I need a box.

(Of course the *speaker* could use *the* in both translations, since
the speaker has knowledge not available to the listener until the
listener is told, but Lojban is *not* a speaker-based language, and
never has been; this is yet another non-English side-effect of being
a dialog-based language.)

{le} is specific *in the mind of* the speaker.  It is not necessarily
specific to the listener, until the speaker explains more to the
speaker.  Hence, using English language inspired jargon such as
`+specific' is easily misleading.  {le} is *not necessaily* +specific
until *both* speaker and listener have whatever is designated in mind
jointly.

ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk asked:

    The question is whether LO can be specific: Is "lo gerku cu xunre"
    *necessarily* true if there exists at least one red dog?

The answer is no, not if the context is the room I am in right now.
The answer is yes, if the context is the whole universe and true dogs
include those that look reddish to me when looking through
rosy-colored glasses.

Put another way, {le broda} in itself conveys less information to a
listener than {lo broda}, which in turn conveys less information than
{lo'i broda}.

In English, there is also a sequence, but the contents of information
are different: <a whatever> in itself conveys less information to
either listener or speaker than <the whatever>, which in turn conveys
less information than <the set of whatever>.

    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

    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