Re: le/lo

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Bob replying to someone (I'm not sure who):
> You go on to say:
>
>    The real problem is that the le/lo distinction is crude. It forces a
>    choice between whether specificity is more important than veridicality,
>
> This may be the crux of the matter.  (And you will note that in this
> context {le te kruca} is an appropriate use of {le}!)

This is definitely correct. If you want to use a gadri, you
are offered the choice of
(a) +veridical, -specific, [& in my view this strongly implies
    definiteness, so {le} could almost always be translated by "the"] or
(b) -veridical, +specific.
That's how Lojban is, and there's no point in complaining. To get
+veridical, +specific, it seems necessary to use {ba`e ko`a}.
(This would imply -definite, as well.)
The downside of that is you can't use gadri syntax with it, but
the upside is that at least it's easy to refer back to anaphorically.

In a sense then, there's the following pattern:

                   LE     KOhA
     +v,+s,(-def)         ba`e ko`a
     +v,-s         lo     da
     -v,+s,(+def)  le

> The le/lo distinction does *not* force such a choice.

I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Unless:

> As an experiment, translate each of your uses of {le} with the long
> gloss; similarly with {lo}; and pay attention to context.  The
> problems of specificity will or will not make themselves felt, as the
> case may be.  When they do make themselves felt, you have to use the
> other standard Lojban methods for specification, such as expressing
> color or number or tense.

I suspect you misunderstand specificity. It is not a question
of whether the addressee can identify the referent. It is a question
of whether the speaker is predicating something of a particular
referent at all. It's more like identifiability-*in-principle*
than identifiability-*in-practise*.

--And