Re: TECH: Transparency / Opaqueness

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

And responding to Veijo:
> 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.

Could you explain what is definiteness in this context, please.

> 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.

Which is a pretty nonsensical claim. And verifiably false: just
wait until you're dead, and then it will be obvious that picking
any two books you would most likely not have read them, and
therefore the claim that in the future you would was false.
(Unless truth values involve somehow your intent at the time?)

>   There are two books I'll read. - examine every book & if
>      you find at least two that I'll read, the assertion is
>      true.

A transparent claim, and the one {mi ba tcidu re cukta} means.
(The examination of all the books need not be done
contemporaneously with the uttering of the claim.)

Jorge