Re: context in Lojban

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Among the usual array of sensible remarks we are fortunate to
receive daily from Jorge (zohonai), he says (replying to Bob Chassell):
> >     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.

I fully agree that this matter should be settled. The LE/LO distinction
has traditionally been described in terms of veridicality, but Colin
a while back, and Jorge recently have argued, with great cogency
and clarity, that the distinction should be understood as one
of specificity.

I certainly support Colin & Jorge's view: veridicality is a rather
unnecessary and uninteresting distinction, while specificity/
nonspecificity is absolutely indispensable. But since (as far as I
am aware) Lojban Central has not pronounced on the matter, the
discussions are ending up at cross purposes. So, please can we
have some authoritative decision between the following two
options:
  (a) LE/LO differ in terms of specificity & it should be acknowledged
      that veridicality is a red herring;
  (b) LE/LO differ in terms of veridicality, and are both specific,
      and nonspecificity must be expressed by other means (e.g.
      "da poi ...").

This matter presumably needs to be settled before solutions to the
opacity problem are investigated.

----
And