Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:58:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710290558.AAA03645@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Dvorak (& Lojban) X-To: c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 827 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 29 00:59:08 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >That's hardly how the default contexts work. Most Lojbanists do seem to >interpet contexts for space and time as being fairly immediate unless told >otherwise, and the context of "lo" to be as broad as possible to allow for >REASONABLE non-specificity. I think Lojbanists do so because Lojbanists are English speakers and those are the English defaults. People seem to be trying deperately to map "lo" to English "a" and "le" to English "the", and assuming the default context is one that makes this possible. Probably when you are talking to an English native, this is a better assumption than one might hope would be tru of Lojban use in general when people are fluent. But it is not really what the language design says. Myself, I am prone to explicitly limiting the universe of discourse whenever I use "lo". lojbab