RE: [jboske] gadri

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Lojbab:
> From TL 4/3 (November 1980), in 
> which pc summarized (with JCB concurrence) the additions to the language 
> from 1975-80 in what was stated to be an official supplement to Loglan I:
> 
> "
> (Lua and Lue) Each forms a designation of a set or a class as such rather 
> than of their members, as is the case with le and lea [lea in lojban is ro 
> lo]. Lue is analogous to le in that it is "intentional". It designates a 
> particular set which the speaker "has in mind" by his mentioning one or 
> more of the properties shared, or apparently shared, by its members. 
[...]
> Note also that JCB and pc apparently understood the "in mind" aspect of le 
> (and le'e) to be +intentional rather than +specific; 

The above description sounds like a description of +specific, with
"+intentional" as merely a nonstandard term for +specific.

> I'm not sure when le 
> became -opaque, but suspect that it came from a discussion involving these 
> same parties (Cowan, And, and Jorge) in 1994 including
> http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9411/msg00073.html
> I suggest people review the discussions of that era in the archives, 
> especially looking for "opaque" and "specific" to see where this debate got 
> started (if you also look for "Iain" you will find where the abstraction 
> place in sisku came from), and perhaps find that we resolved it already 

The -opaque follows from the general principle that every sumti is
quantified in the localmost bridi that may be ancient or may
have originated with John in the early 90s.

--And.