[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TECH: Mark Shoulson waiting for a taxi

Mr Andrew Rosta <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK> writes about Mark Shoulson's taxi:
> If I remember right (probably not), a (long) while back Mark
> wrote about waiting for a taxi - any taxi - to come along. Since
> the taxi is non-specific, this rules out use of the le-series
> - le karcrtaksi, lei karcrtaksi.
> But "lo karcrtaksi" doesn't seem quite right, if it means
> "there is some taxi such that M.S. was waiting for it" -
> it suggests that a taxi for which Mark was not waiting could
> have come along...

Hmm, the specific vs. definite debate again, to which I am somewhat
blind.  Translating, using klode'a = diklo denpa = x1 waits for x2 to
be in the vicinity, which may not be sufficient for taxis:

        la mark. cu klode'a lo karcrtaksi

Here's how an anthropologist could verify this statement: Waiting (for
a transport means) ends when the journey resumes.  If on the arrival of
any taxi (= the first taxi) Mark gets in it, the statement was true, he
was waiting for something that really is a taxi.  On the other hand, if
he rejects some taxis and gets in a specific one (do I mean a definite
one?), the statement is still true for the same reason.  But if he gets
into a bus, he must have been waiting for a bus (or a generalized
vehicular transport means), not a taxi specifically, and the statement
is false.

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.

                -- jimc