Re: TECH: Transparency / Opaqueness

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

La Veion:
>   (a)     I'll read two books. [any two]
>   (b)     I'll read two books, this and that.
>
> ((a) is the opaque case and (b) the transparent one)
> and put it into Lojban, I get
>
>   (a) mi ba tcidu re [lo] cukta
>   (b) mi ba tcidu le [bi'u] re [lo] cukta ku ne ti .e ta
>
> In (b) I think we must use {le} as I clearly indicate
> two quite specific things in spite of the English surface
> structure.
> [....]
> This way things would fit within the existing framework and
> we would need no new cmavo (Jorge's xe'e). Secondly we could
> crossreference {le/lo} quite nicely to Quine and remove even
> more of the correspondence to the English {the/a} (or the
> Indo-European definite/indefinite articles in general).

It has been established (to my satisfaction, at any rate)
that LE/LO is +/-specific [Colin propounded this most lucidly].
It only relates to definiteness in
that only +specifics can be +/-definite.
I think that we do need a new cmavo & that LO/LE isn't
the same as transparent/opaque. You seem to miss the ambiguity
of (a).
  I'll read any two books. - pick two items freely from the
     set of all books, & it is asserted that I'll read them.
  There are two books I'll read. - examine every book & if
     you find at least two that I'll read, the assertion is
     true.

I hope I didn't misunderstand you.
-----
And