Re: "ro" doesn't imply +specific

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

John:
> Such universal quantifications over finite sets can be +definite or -definite:
> the 50 (not 51, And) states of the US can be +definite, but hardly the
> zillion real-world rats; nobody even knows how many there are, never mind
> knowing each rat in particular (urgh).  For this and related reasons,
> I remain skeptical about the utility of a +definite/-definite marker in
> Lojban; if it existed, it would surely be a discursive.

I absolutely agree +/-definite is the job of a discursive, but i think
it might be useful, esp. with LE. If the discursive is "xo'i", then
"xo'i le gerku" wd mean "a certain dog, & I reckon you know which dog
I'm referring to". English, after all, appears to find marking definiteness
rather useful.

> Apropos counting {jecta}: most USAnians don't know how many provinces Canada
> has, and I vaguely recall that England (not the U.K.) has 56 counties, but
> I'm very prepared to be told I'm wrong.  So 51 states isn't that bad.

I've no idea how many counties England has, & even the people who count
them don't agree on what counts as a county. (E.g. Rutland, which had
a population of about two, got abolished by non-Rutlanders, but Rutland
has never consented to its abolition.)

---
And