Re: context in Lojban

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

replying to Bob Chassell:
> So as not to confuse anyone with jargon like `+specific' and
> `-specific', remember, if the context is that there are a real and a
> non-real box in front of us, and our contextual range is constrained
> to those boxes, then
>
>     .i mi nitcu lo tanxe
>
> is *specific* as to which box, and

So even if there exists a real box that you do need, but you need neither
of the boxes in the "contextual range", then the utterance is false
- according to you. I am incredulous that this really is the official
line on LO.

>     .i mi nitcu le tanxe
>
> is *not* specific as to which box.  This is basic to Lojban.

I don't see how it can't be specific if the referent of "le tanxe" is
in-mind. To get the meaning you want, I think "suho le tanxe" would
be better: "at least one member of the set {entity1, entity2}, which
I describe as boxes".

> {le} is specific *in the mind of* the speaker.  It is not necessarily
> specific to the listener, until the speaker explains more to the
> speaker.  Hence, using English language inspired jargon such as
> `+specific' is easily misleading.

"Specific" is of course an English word, but it has a technical sense
which is the sense I hope we are all intending, and this sense is
relevant for language in general, not just for English in particular.
Your description above of "le" fits the technical definition of "specific".

> {le} is *not necessaily* +specific
> until *both* speaker and listener have whatever is designated in mind
> jointly.

This is at least confusing, and maybe inaccurate. Specificity holds
between the lexical expression and the proposition derived from the
lexical expression: if the proposition in the mind of the speaker
fails to get through to the addressee, this is a failure of communication,
but doesn't mean the lexical expression was not specific.
Put more simply, specificity has to do with reference, not with
communication.

> ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk asked:
>
>     The question is whether LO can be specific: Is "lo gerku cu xunre"
>     *necessarily* true if there exists at least one red dog?
>
> The answer is no, not if the context is the room I am in right now.
> The answer is yes, if the context is the whole universe and true dogs
> include those that look reddish to me when looking through
> rosy-colored glasses.

A clear answer. If this is indeed the official line then Jorge, Colin,
I, and, I think, Iain, are simply wrong about the proper meaning of LO.
[Is this therefore USA vs rest-of-the-world?]

---
And