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 m0rEaEU-00007ZC; Mon, 5 Dec 94 12:01 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7741; Sat, 03 Dec 94 06:28:49 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7739; Sat, 3 Dec 1994 06:28:47 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8054; Sat, 3 Dec 1994 05:24:30 +0100 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 23:55:04 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: (1) loi; (2) le v. la To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: (Your message of Fri, 02 Dec 94 13:47:08 EST.) Content-Length: 923 Lines: 23 John: > > The resulting paradigm would be: > > lo +veridical -specific > > le +veridical +specific > > la -veridical +specific > > I still think the current layout is superior. As Jorge and others have > said, +specific really removes the need for +veridical. If the speaker is the > standard of reference, why appeal to a separate standard of truth? Because "-veridical" is for me worryingly unconstrained. The addressee has to work out what the referent of "le gerku" is, and in principle it could be anything. If the referent actually had to be a gerku then the addressee would have an easier time of it. We seem to be banking on speakers pretending LE is pretty much +veridical (e.g. on speakers not describing bananas as gerku). Perhaps I am biased by English, since, so far as I am aware, everything in English is +veridical. Consequently I may lack the appropriate intuitions about -veridical. --- And