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 m0rjpyE-00007AC; Wed, 1 Mar 95 17:05 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1492; Wed, 01 Mar 95 17:05:49 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1490; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 17:05:49 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8571; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 16:01:36 +0100 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 10:04:33 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: On {lo} and existence X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 654 Lines: 16 la i,n cusku di'e > (Historical digression: This list normally uses the term "specific" > to denote something _known to the speaker_. I still haven't found > a good replacement for the more general sense of something precise, > unique (though not necessarily singular in number), which is the > sense I intend above.) Perhaps we could use "identified referent" instead of "specific referent" for {le broda}. The speaker knows which one is the individual that satisfies the predication (or which ones). In the case of {lo broda}, the speaker may or may not know which one, the claim is only that there is at least one broda that fits the bill. Jorge