small universe consequences

[bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU]

Here is what I am trying to say about {lo}, {le}, and the universe:

In Lojban, {lo} and {le} are grammatical operators that categorize the
following sumti tail as to whether it/they is/are `for real' or `that
which I am designating as'.  Neither categorizers, in themselves,
provide specificity or definiteness.

    1. You may define context for the universe of {lo}.
    2. When you do this, default quantifiers are useful.
    3. In certain cases, {lo} will be specific and definite.
    4. The gloss of {lo} for `a' and {le} for `the' is misleading.
    5. Much of the current discussion regarding specificity is misplaced.
    6. Lojban is all right as is, so long as you define context, which
       actually is a requirement of Lojban, but sometimes overlooked.

Let me lay this out:

ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk cusku di'e

    What matters for purposes of meaning is not whether a proposition
    is true or false but the conditions under which it would be true
    or false. The meaning of the above example, then, can be defined
    as the set that includes every universe in which there is one
    grey (?) cat, and excludes every universe in which there is
    no grey cat. What universes actually do or don't exist isn't
    relevant. If every possible universe exists, then for the purposes
    of defining meanings, we can *pretend* that some don't.

Yes, you are correct.  This is what I saying, with the proviso that we
can and should define the context in which we are speaking without
including parts that are outside the context.  (Your statement,
`includes every universe', leaves open the possibility that you
include universes that contain one gray cat, yet are not part of the
context in which we are speaking.)

(Incidentally, `grey' is the common British spelling for the American
`gray'; I myself can never remember which is for which country and
have to look up the spelling in a dictionary.)

If we say that some universes don't exist, then it is meaningful and
useful to say that

    .i pa lo ci mlatu cu grusi
    One of the three cats is gray.

and be referring to a universe in which there are only three cats.

I keep coming back to this because otherwise I find myself feeding
many neighboring cats.  :-)

Returning to the point, you cannot specify or make definite the
meaning of {lo mlatu} unless you constrain the universe.  Jorge is
correct in saying that if you do not constrain the universe, {lo} is
useless.

Of course, as soon as you admit the possibility of pretending that a
universe or part of the universe does not exist, then you may define
your context as you wish.  That is how we get to universes that
contain only three cats or three dogs.  After all, there is nothing
that says we must use the universe `as known by JCB on the day he
first invented Loglan', or `as known by my gray cat', or `as was
imagined by everyone on 1 November 1984'.

Once you return {lo} to usefulness, with defaults {su'o} and {ro} (and
actual quantifiers as spoken), then you discover that an expression
containing {lo} may be specific in the mind of the speaker and
definite in the mind of the listener as to which `for real' entity you
are referring.

Then the gloss of {lo} for `a' and {le} for `the' is seen as no more
than a gloss, and a misleading one at that.

Then the whole discussion of whether {lo} and {le} expressions are
intrinsically + or - specific and definite is seen as misplaced.

Then we come to the conclusion, in Lojban, that {lo} and {le} are
grammatical operators that categorize the following sumti tail as to
whether the sumti tail is `for real' or is `that which I am
designating as'.  Neither categorizers, in themselves, provide
specificity or definiteness, although as a rule of thumb, {lo} does
less and {le} does more (whence the origin of the gloss).

    Robert J. Chassell               bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us
    25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road     bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   (413) 298-4725