Re: context in Lojban

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

> My opinion is that the status quo for Lojban is that
> LO is +veridical
> LE is -veridical
> There is secondary usage that LE is +specific, because specificity is implied
> in having an in-mind object that is not necessarily veridical.

I wonder if "in-mind" entails (or, is synonymous with) "specific".
I have a feeling that "specific" is what is meant by "in-mind", so
LE is +specific and the debate consists of whether LO is necessarily
nonspecific.

> LO being usually contrasted with LE, it therefore has fallen on LO to reflect
> non-specificity.  But a non-specific, non-veridical should not be expressed
> with LO.  I think veridicality therefore remains pre-eminent, with the
> words being neutral on specificity.  I believe that in the ideal case, though,
> LO is making a minimal claim ONLY of veridicality, which implies
 nonspecificity
> unless there is an expressed restriction.  I would be willing to back off
> on the requirement of restriction before backing off on veridicality.

(I don't understand where "restriction" fits in here.)
I don't think I (or Jorge) has a problem with LO being veridical.
The question is whether LO can be specific: Is "lo gerku cu xunre"
*necessarily* true if there exists at least one red dog? If so,
LO is nonspecific. If, however, you can't evaluate the truth of
the sentence until you've ascertained whether I meant "Ex, dog(x)
& red(x)" or "Fido (who, incidentally, really is a dog) is red",
then LO is indeed neutral with respect to specificity.
If LO is indeed neutral, then I guess we have to use "da poi..."
to indicate nonspecificity.
I hope I'm right that LE is +specific, since I can think of
no other locution for indicating +specific.

> Note that Russian gets along just fine without a specific/non-specific
> distinction.  It is something alien to English speakers, though I have
> surprisingly never had trouble in Russian determining the level of
> specificity when it was relevant from context.

As far as I am aware, English doesn't have a grammaticalized
specific/non-specific distinction either. But the distinction
is crucial in explaining English utterance interpretation.

> Now if people convince pc and Nick and others that this design is wrong
> logically, then we may have to redefine things.  BUt I really would be
> disinclined to make any such change without it being a true flaw in the
> language.  I would rather see "lo" become less useful than to muddy its
> definition further.

I don't think there's any muddying going on.
At this point I'm not saying there is anything wrong logically;
I'm just asking for clarification, since I don't yet really believe
that you really mean that LO is not nonspecific.

---
And