From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Jul 08 20:43:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1263 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2000 03:43:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Jul 2000 03:43:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Jul 2000 03:43:00 -0000 Received: from m8-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com ([62.252.12.8] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 13B7qY-0000ig-00 for lojban@egroups.com; Sun, 09 Jul 2000 04:33:35 +0100 To: Subject: RE: "which?" (was: RE: [lojban] centripetality: subset vs component Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 04:42:48 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000707015957.86513.qmail@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" [An offtopic message called "Re: Robin on cmene" sent in my last batch was sent to the list inadvertently through carelessness: sorry.] Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > > > le mo mlatu i le blabi mlatu > > > Which cat? The white cat. > > > > > > lo mo mlatu i lo blabi mlatu > > > What kind of cat? A white cat. > > > >I don't think this necessarily works, except as a convention that > >exceeds the grammar's stipulations. Specifically, the problem is > >that when discussing "le mlatu", you might want to ask what kind > >of cat it is, and not all relevant answers to that question will > >tell you which cat is being referred to. > > But that would be {le mlatu cu mo}, or {le mlatu cu ckaji ma}. In an earlier message you said {lo mo mlatu} would ask "what kind?", and if that is correct then I don't see why it wouldn't extend to {le mo mlatu} too. And while I don't immediately see any substantial difference between {lo mo mlatu} and {lo mlatu cu mo}, one substantial difference between {le mo mlatu} and {le mlatu cu mo} would be that the answer to the former but not the latter would be nonveridical. > I was not so much concerned about how to get the "what kind?" > question as the "which?", I realize this. > and {le mo} has to mean "which?" > because of {le}'s specificity. It can't mean "what kind?". I don't yet see the reasoning behind this. Crucially, I don't see why {le mo} must be interpreted not merely as a request for more info about the referent but specifically as a request for the speaker to give sufficient info for the addressee to identify the referent. So far as I can currently see, Lojban has no direct means of expressing such a request. Maybe {[sumti] du ma}? Or {ma me [sumti]}? --And.