Re: context in Lojban

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

Bob Chassell says:

> 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.

This is consistent with what pc says, but if {lo tanxe} is specific,
then its quantifier {su'o} is wrong. If {lo tanxe} is specific it can't
mean {su'o lo tanxe}.

> 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}.

Is there any language in which context is not always understood? I agree
that context is essential in understanding any Lojban sentence, just as
for any other language.

>     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).

If that's what it means, then we should fix the default quantifier of {lo}.
(I hope it doesn't mean that, because {lo} is very useful as the marker
for non-specific sumti. {le} already serves for the specific case.)

> 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}.

This point should be clarified. If it is indeed the case that veridicality
is the only difference between {lo} and {le}, I can understand now why
people give it so much importance. If the difference is specificity vs
non-specificity (a much more useful distinction , IMHO) then the
veridicality issue becomes secondary and unimportant.

> 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.

Let's say there were no boxes in front of them, and Santa still needed
one. {mi nitcu lo tanxe} would still not work, whether with non-specific
{lo} or much less with a specific {lo}.

> 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.

English is a low context language? That sounds hard to believe.

So, what does {lo} mean?

Jorge