Message-Id: <199709251723.MAA10736@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Date: Thu Sep 25 12:23:36 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: LE and VOI X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1248 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Sep 25 12:23:36 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Jorge: > but I don't see any need to stress that we really are talking > about a real cat, since that will be the default assumption. > Context has to clearly indicate otherwise for {le mlatu} to > refer to something that is not a cat. I used to agree with that, but then came across a footnote in McCawley where he gives "the man standing over there drinking a martini is having an affair" said at a party by someone trying to point the man out to someone else. The speaker does not wish to assert that the man really is drinking a martini; if the man is not actually drinking a martini, but something else instead that just looks like martini, the speaker does not want the overall sentence to be false. Rather the "standing over there drinking a martini" bit is just used to guide the addressee in assigning reference. So the following combos are useful: 1 nonspecific, veridical 2 specific, veridical, "indefinite" (= referent not (necessarily) identifiable by addressee) 3 specific, nonveridical, "definite" (= referent not (necessarily) identifiable by addressee) Function 1 is performed by {lo}. Functions 2 & 3 are both performed by {le}. Both 2 & 3 are useful, & it wd be nice to think of an easy way to distinguish them. --And