Re: some definitions

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la pycy cusku di'e

> OPAQUE (referentially opaque context) Terms which occur in opaque
> contexts cannot be exported to surrounding transparent contexts, cannot
> be generalized by nor used to instantiate external quantifiers, doe not
> replace under external identitities, if bound need not instantiate to
> external objects.  (I admit that this collapses several notions into one,
> but most logicians hold that they go together.)

This seems to be the way I was using "opaque". The key point is that an
opaque sumti does not instantiate to external objects, while I think
{lo broda} in {lo broda cu brode} should always instantiate, no matter
what {brode} is. That is a difference from English, where "a box" is
transparent in "I see a box" but opaque in "I need a box". I don't think
in Lojban the semantics of the selbri should influence the opaqueness of
its sumti. {mi nitcu lo tanxe} should behave like {mi viska lo tanxe}
as far as the instantiation properties of {lo tanxe} is concerned.

> INTENTIONAL.  Having to do with what an agent intends: purpose, goal,
> motive, etc.  This somewhat elastic, since objective needs are sometimes
> included along with subjective wants.  These are always intensional.

Intentional has also been used to describe a property of {le}, which does
not have to do with agents, but with the speaker of the utterance.
This intentionality of {le} does not make the utterance intensional, it
only serves to specify the referent of the sumti.

> I hope that helps.

Sure does. Thanks for the definitions.

>  In
> the same discussion -- and maybe more critically -- could someone explain
> "specific" and "definite".  These two words are used interchangably by
> some groups and by others to make any number of distinctions (often one
> group uses one to make the distinction another makes with the other),
> what exactly is going on here.

I use "non-specific" to mean that the question "which one(s)?" has not been
in principle answered, but the question is relevant.

So, in {mi klama lo zarci}, {lo zarci} is non-specific, because I only
said that I go to "a market", no information was given to specify which
one, but the question "which one?" must have an answer, i.e. there _is_
a market such that I go to it.

The speaker need not know the answer to "which one?" for the claim to be
true, but there must be one.

In {mi klama le zarci}, {le zarci} is specific. The relevant question
if "the market" cannot be identified by the audience is not "which market?",
that has already been answered as "the market", the relevant question is
"what do you mean by 'the market'?", or "What is the market?".

In English, the dialogue: "I'm going to the market." "Which market?"
does make sense, but only because the assumption by the speaker that
the audience understands the referent of "the market" fails, not because
the speaker left it non-specific, as in "I'm going to a market", in which
case the audience has not been told the referent of "a market".

That seems suitably muddled.

> The discussion is not helped by the fact that some of the examples of
> apparently non-controversial cases seem just wrong: _lo_brida_ keeps
> appearing as a general term rather than a singular one, if translation
> and inferences are any guide.

I don't understand that. {lo broda} means (I hope) "at least one of
all things that broda". What would be general/singular in this case?
(Those weren't in the list of definitions :)


Jorge