context in Lojban

[bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU]

This opaque/transparent discussion often contains confusing cases.

For example, some people consistently refer to

    mi nitcu lo tanxe
as
    I need a box

suggesting that the box is unspecified or opaque.  Some of the Lojban
introductory materials encourage `a' for {lo}.  However, by default,
this translation is wrong for Lojban, although the interpretation is
correct in Logic and English.

Lojban is a dialog, not monologue, based language, as Lojbab pointed
out many years ago.  Context is always understood.  If context is not
understood, then someone should say {ki'a}.

    mi nitcu lo tanxe

best translates as

    I require that which is really a box in the context understood by
    you and me (and whoever else is part of this conversation).

Suppose you and I have  the top of a box and a real box in front of us;
the top of the box can look like a real box if you look at it from the
top, but is only a top.  In this context, {lo tanxe} is transparent,
is specific, and is *more* specific than {le tanxe}.

It is a bad habit to use `a' for {lo} and `the' for {le}.  When
contexts are known, {lo} is often, perhaps mostly more specific than
{le}.

Please express examples with appropriate context.  Unfortunately,
the Santa and the Elf example of a few days ago did not tell what
would have been evident to the conversationalists, namely the number
and reality of the various boxes and things that might be designated
boxes in front of the conversationalists.  The Santa and Elf case made
sense to Logicians and English speakers because people in these
languages expect low context monologues; but the situation is very
unlike what Lojban is supposed to be.

    Robert J. Chassell               bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu
    25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road     bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   (413) 298-4725