Re: TECH: Mark Shoulson waiting for a taxi

[Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>]

And answers jimc:

++++++++>
> I'm blind to the issues in this debate because Lojban/Loglan articles
> are not really defined so as to express the definite/specific distinction.
> They're defined to express the in-mind vs. really-is vs. proper-name
> distinction.  An in-mind sumti can be specific or not, definite or not,
> just as can be a really-is sumti or a named individual.

What is an example of an in-mind non-specific sumti?

If the distinction really is as you say, then why is it we don't
use "lo" most of the time? After all, when we speak of "le broda",
the referent usually really-is a broda, so "lo" should be the
default, and "le" used only when the referent may not really-be
a broda, even though we're describing it as one.

I reckon the +/-specific distinction is much more useful &
linguistically significant than this kind of figurative/literal
distinction.
>++++++++++
I completely agree with And. The fundamental distinction is
in-mind vs really-is; but I don't believe in an in-mind
non-specific, therefore, in-mind implies specific (which
may then be definite or not).

We may use 'lo' most of the time if we wish - this produces
something with the correct truth value, but often the wrong
pragmatics.

        Colin