Help!

[Roberto Ricci <RRICCI@sci.uniroma1.it>]

Ok guys,
you've won: I'm definitely lost!...
The degree of my confusion hasn't stopped increasing since you started that
interminable discussion on
opacity-tranparence-veridicality-specificity-definiteness-....
I know I'm just a poor theoretical physicist, who spends his time trying
to conceive a solution to the minor problem of the initial spacetime singularity
in the Big-Bang model of the universe (not the universe of discourse, the
*real* universe out there...:-), but don't you think that if your academical
cluttering turns out to be almost unintelligible to people like me, it will
hardly be of any use for "the man of the (electronic) street"?
Keeping conceiving ingenuous counterexamples in order to destroy the faith in
the communicability of thought among human beings has a lot to do with analytic
philosophy and solipsism (nothing wrong with that, of course) but nothing at
all with the goal of your Institute (at least if you're not masochist... :-)
I'm *really* interested in the Lojban project: please let me
understand what the hell you're talking about! If I don't understand, I
cannot give my (poor) contribution either. But maybe your only interest is
in building up a cryptic language for you initiates...
Ciao
   Roberto
PS - Trying to eliminate *any* ambiguity in communication by means of
synctactical tools is (probably) a hopeless task...
A provocative proposal: why don't we substitute most
LE cmavo for a semantically neutral marker and let the context be the dirty
work? As someone recalled, neither Chinese nor Russian have any article
whatsoever but nevertheless they work fine! :-)