Re: TECH: Mark Shoulson waiting for a taxi

[Mr Andrew Rosta <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

la jimc. cusku dihe:
> 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.

What I am looking for is expressing conditions where the statement
is false if he rejects any taxi prior to getting in one. I'm suggesting
"loi" for this.

> 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.

-----
And