[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
That change would be to make "le" (and perhaps the entire "le" series) the 'basic gadri' which would be +nothing-in-particular and -veridical. The lo series would add +veridical. Individual cmavo would be added for +specific +opaque +intensional or any other feature deemed important enough to warrant making a logical distinction, but "le" makes no such distinctions and is metaphysically null. (lei, le'e and le'i would each be adding features to the null article consistent with their current definition, but le could be used to cover a lei or a le'i.)
The English usage that I once made "speaker in mind" would be interpreted the way I intended, which is -specific in that the speaker may not necessarily have specific object(s) in mind, or even extant in some world, but merely that there is a reference being invoked, which is defined within the speaker's mind, which he is trying to evoke in the listener.
I believe this is consistent with usage if not with CLL wording (and I'm not sure it is far from the wording), matches the null-default practices of tense and other portions of the language. I am not sure that I much care what happens to the "default quantifiers" in all this except that lo/loi should assume a reference to a minimal subset of those referenced by the description and with the relevant feature (i.e. su'o/pisu'o outside quantifier) and the "in-mind-described" le and "in-mind-named" la should refer to all of those that are in-mind (ro/piro outside quantifier). It also allows us a clear and logical solution to all the problems that we've come up with using one cmavo apiece for each added feature. The only negative is that a very complicated set of features will be a long gadri-string (the added feature cmavo could probably be UI), but this is consistent - an elaborate tense claim is also long-winded.
Only slightly related to this, and I am less sure that it is supported in CLL/usage: I think that if du'u abstractions refer to facts/relations in the real world i.e. being realized, si'o abstractions might be used to refer to facts/relations that might or might not be realized or realizable. This would clearly allow "le sidbo" a si'o abstraction, to refer to a possibly unrealizable, but imaginable relationship. I'm sure I've talked of si'o in that way before, but I think I've also talked about si'o as the neutral, least restrictive featured abstraction, and I would have to withdraw that understanding (again, no idea how this would match CLL policy.)
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org