Re: current cmene project

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

I said:
> As I understand things, "la beidjin" (for example) refers to something
> named by the form "beidjin" (where the namer is the speaker). It would
> seem to me that if we want a word for (in this case) the capital of
> the Republic of China, we want something that instead means "x such
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      [I take this opportunity to emend this to 'People's Republic
       of China'. Had I been writing in Lojban my usage would have
       been correct, since in Lojban 'la grg' means 'that which I
       am calling "grg"'. If, however, I has used a fuhivla whose
       denotation is the island of Taiwan, then my usage would have
       been in error, since I was intending to refer to mainland
       China.]
> that x is Beijing", *NOT* "x such that I am calling x 'beidjin'". If
> this is right, then Lojban Central should be seeking fuhivla, not
> cmene, for the various states of the USA, etc.

& Jorge responds:
> I don't see why should there be a difference in naming cities or people.
> la beidjin is the name of an individual, not a generic name.

The denotation of "la beidjin" is the members of the class of things
called (by the speaker) /beidjin/.

The only reasons for not also using fuhivla for individual people
are practical ones.
 * There are many more people than there are cities.
 * One uses vocatives for people more than for cities.

But the reasons for using fuhivla whenever feasible are principled:
the hearer is not entitled to make more than a well-founded guess
that "la beidjin" refers to Beijing, whereas the hearer can be
100% certain that "lo tcadrbeidjinu" refers to Beijing. I could
refer to you with "la beidjin", but not with "lo tcadrbeidjinu"
(though I could refer to you with "le tcadrbeidjinu").

> A fuhivla
> like {tcadrbeidjinu} would mean something like "x1 is a Beijing City".

Quite right. "ro lohi tcadrbeidjinu" [if this means 'the set of all
x such that x is a Beijing City'] has one member.

- ----
And