Re: Some thoughts on Lojban gadri

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la bab. cusku di'e

> Jorge explained his understanding of the Lojban gadri of selma'o LE.
> It looks to me that much of what he says is at variance with how
> Lojban has been defined hitherto.
> 
> 
>     lo broda        At least one of all things that broda.
> 
> Yes, but bear in mind that the {su'o} and {ro} are merely *default*
> values.  Unless explicitly specified as {su'o} and {ro}, an unadorned
> {lo broda} utterance may (but usually does not) imply some other value
> for them.

No, I think not.  If the quantifiers are omitted (or either of them), the
default values take over.  This is not one of those places where "unspecified
means 'glork it from context'"; unspecified quantifiers have the same meaning
as if specified to be "su'o" and "ro".

>                     It doesn't say which one(s), but the question
>                     is pertinent and has an answer in principle
>                     (which doesn't mean that the speaker has to know it).
> 
> It is only in this recent thread that anyone has suggested that `which
> one' is of any relevance to {le} or {lo} other than as a help in
> making translations into English.  (Russian is more like Lojban since
> it lacks an equivalent of `a' and `the'.)

This, plus what follows (elided here) is equivalent to saying that Lojban
has no markers for +definite and -definite: there is no telling whether
"le mlatu" means "the cat" (+specific +definite) or "a certain cat"
(+specific -definite).  You have a habit of using "specific" to mean
both +specific and +definite, with resulting mental confusion:  I urge you
to re-read my definitions.  In brief:

	+specific: speaker's intention gives the referent
	-specific: referent is found by quantifying over the universe
	+definite: listener can identify the referent
	-definite: listener cannot identify the referent

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.