Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) scripsit:

> Ya got me.  I'm not sure I could ever keep straight the definiteness and 
> specific things, which indeed have been much discussed over the 
> years.  Probably an issue that I lost on %^)

Specific = the speaker knows which one is the referent
Definite = the listener knows which one is the referent

+specific +definite = the man
+specific -definite = a certain man
-specific -definite = a man, some man

(-specific +definite is conceivable, but not likely except maybe in echo
questions)

> I am not saying that >I< will insist on this; on the contrary, when you say 
> it is done, it is.   [...] You have full editorial power to decide that point.

This is essentially what Lojbab said to me when I was in the "book seat".
I second it now.

> In my opinion, ka is a property of the selbri or bridi depending on to what 
> degree it is filled in.
> 
> I understand that this may not be what ka "should" be, merely that it is 
> the way I look at the concept when I try to wax theoretical about it.  When 
> ka is being used to focus on the propert(ies) of one place of the bridi, 
> then I understand and agree that ce'u is the appropriate usage.

One or more places: two {ce'u}s make it a 2-place relation abstraction, etc.

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan