Re: context in Lojban

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la lojbab cusku di'e

> My opinion is that the status quo for Lojban is that
> LO is +veridical
> LE is -veridical
> There is secondary usage that LE is +specific, because specificity is implied
> in having an in-mind object that is not necessarily veridical.

There is no disagreement with any of this (except for the word "secondary").
The question is whether {lo} is non-specific or not. You seem to agree that
it is non-specific:

> LO being usually contrasted with LE, it therefore has fallen on LO to reflect
> non-specificity.

That's all I wanted to hear. From my point of view, the veridicality property
is almost a consequence of the specificity. Non-specific implies +veridical,
so if {lo} is non-specific, it has to be veridical.

Specific doesn't imply -veridical, but veridicality becomes relatively
unimportant for specific sumti, and I'm very much in favour of not requiring
that {le} be veridical.

> But a non-specific, non-veridical should not be expressed
> with LO.

Could you give an example of a non-specific, non-veridical?

In any case, the disagreement was whether a +specific, +veridical could be
expressed with {lo}.

> It was my suggestion
> to pc that "lo" be contrasted with "le" and thus usable with individuals
> out of that veridical set if appropriate, ENABLING non-specific selection
> from the veridical set to be the default, because "all broda" statements
> really aren't that useful in language when people are really concerned with
> truth values.  Hence the outer quantifier "su'o".

I fully agree with that. Key words: "non-specific selection".

> Now if people convince pc and Nick and others that this design is wrong
> logically, then we may have to redefine things.

The design you describe is the one I'm arguing for. I don't want to redefine
anything. In particular, I don't want to change {su'o} as the default
quantifier of {lo}, which makes it non-specific.

Jorge