Message-Id: <199412072339.AA23573@nfs1.digex.net>
Date:         Wed, 7 Dec 1994 15:34:50 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: About 'zasti'
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

The full definition of zasti is

zasti zat     za'i exist
x1 exists/is real/actual/reality for x2 under metaphysics x3

so you can probably distinguish between different meanings with different
x2 an x3.

> >From this example, I would be induced to conclude that the best (unique?)
> interpretation for 'da' is the restricted one, even though no relative
> phrase follows:
> 'there is at least one x *in the universe of discourse*'.

That's how I understand it too. But the universe of discourse is different
from the context of the utterance. {lo broda} selects from all the things
that the language community accepts as real broda, while {le broda} only
from what the speaker is designating as broda, which of course has to have
some connection with what really are broda, or nobody else will understand.

> Since what the universe of discourse is usually depends on speaker's
> subjective attitudes or opinions, the restricted interpretation
> of 'lo broda' seems to me very close (apart from the difference in the default
> quantifiers and specificity value) to the possible interpretation of 'le
> broda' as 'all of those that are broda in (my) universe of
> discourse'.

Well, I would say that the universe of discourse is the consensus of what
all speakers of the language agree to, it can't depend only on the speaker's
attitudes, otherwise noone else will understand what he is saying. What
really is a mlatu and what isn't depends on what all the speakers understand
by it. If there is too much disagreement, there isn't really much communication
that can go on among them.

> Waiting for comments.
>
> co'o mi'e rob.

co'o mi'e xorxes