From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Fri Dec  2 20:36:45 1994
Message-Id: <199412030136.AA28905@nfs2.digex.net>
Date: Fri Dec 2 20:36:45 1994
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: (1) loi; (2) le v. la
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Fri, 02 Dec 94 13:47:08 EST.)
Status: RO

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