Re: TECH: Transparency / Opaqueness

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

Jorge:
> 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.

Oversimplifying a bit, it means that the addressee is able to
identify the referent (without asking 'which?').
Compare:
   I bought a book.
   Which book?
- normal
   I bought the book.
   Which book?
- which is not normal, & implies a failure in communication.

> > 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?)

It is sensical, but quite false, as you say. The English means
"pick any two books & I am willing to read them". Then it becomes
true (potentially).

This is the case where one would use "xehe".

> >   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.

Right.  ns.

Right.> 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?)

It is sensical, but quite false, as you say. The English means
"pick any two books & I am willing to read them". Then it becomes
true (potentially).

This is the case where one would use "xehe".

> >   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.

Right.

---
And