Re: LE and VOI

[HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>]

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote:

> cu'u la djef
> > We can't express specificity and veridicality, but we can
> >expres non-specificity and NON-veridicality!
>
> We can express specificity and veridicality in several ways:
>
>             le mlatu noi mlatu cu blabi
>             The cat, which btw really is a cat, is white.
>
>             ro mlatu poi mi fi ke'a tavla cu blabi
>             Each of the really-is-a-cat that I'm talking about are white.

Yes, yes, I KNOW that. It's implicit in my first letter to And Rosta of
September 24. My example was actually a simple "le mlatu cu mlatu". The
point is that these expressions are too clumsy unless you mean to make a
point of stating both specificity and veridicality at once. A casual
utterance like "le mlatu" or "lo mlatu", which is what 90% of human
communication calls for, DOES imply a certain forced choice. Similarly,
you can leave number unspecified in English by saying things like
"person(s)", but this is too clumsy for casual utterances as well. People
like to say that English forces certain choices, but Lojban also forces
choices of its own.

 > > but I don't see any need to stress that we really
are talking > about a real cat, since that will be the default assumption.
> Context has to clearly indicate otherwise for {le mlatu} to
> refer to something that is not a cat.

Well, I agree with you, and that's why I disagree with using "lo" to mean
"the". It's clumsy and confusing.

Regards,

Geoff