From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Jul 15 10:32:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20332 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2000 17:32:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jul 2000 17:32:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.245) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Jul 2000 17:32:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 89790 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jul 2000 17:32:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000715173205.89789.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.154.163 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:32:05 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.154.163] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: RE: "which?" (was: RE: [lojban] centripetality: subset vs component Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:32:05 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e > > A's claim assumes that {le mlatu} is enough to identify > > the cat. > >It doesn't assume this. Specificity is not the same as >identifiability, at least not for the hearer. I don't know what word to use. "Sufficiently identifiable"? "Enough information has been provided for you to take stock of the referent I mean"? "Relevantly identified"? My point is that if the listener has to ask "which?" to a {le broda} from the speaker it is because {le} has failed. If {le} succeeds there is no need for the listener to ask "which?", because the referent has been relevantly identified. On the other hand a "which?" to a {lo broda} is a request for additional information, not a question to clarify a failed communication. >The point of this dialogue was to show that {le >mo broda} needn't be asking a which-question. My impresion is that a successful answer to {le mo broda} should not leave the questioner with a "which broda?" doubt. Do you agree at least with that part? For it to be something else than a which-question, it would require the questioner to already know the referent of {le mo broda}. But if that is the case, any replacement of {mo} will add zero information, because the content of {le} phrases is intrinsically identificatory/specificatory, only secondarilly descriptive. >Okay, I'll discuss this {le ki'a} suggestion now. Here are >two problems with it. > >First: > > A: le nanmu ............ le nanmu > B: le ki'a nanmu > >B is saying that {le} provokes confusion. What sort of >confusion? Presumably, about what the referent is. Right. >HOWEVER, it could simply be confusion about whether >the two {le nanmu} sumti share the same referent. In >this case, all B is saying "is this le ba'e, or not?", >and B is not saying "give me sufficient information >to identify the referent". I don't think I see the difference. There are at least two possible referents, and B is in doubt as to which one A means. Thus {le} has failed. >Second: > >I may be wrong, but I don't think {le ki'a kau} can be >assumed to work as an indirect question. Yet we do want >to be able to say "He told me which book he was reading". But that's {le mokau cukta}. You wouldn't want to use {ki'akau} (which is grammatical, BTW) unless you were reporting the failed {le}, which is not something you would normally want to do. > > A is not making a specific reference there. > >John has answered this: > > % "A certain" in English is a way of making +specific > % -definite sumti: I know what cat is meant (+specific), but > % you don't (-definite). In Lojban "le bi'unai mlatu". I am not very persuaded by this specific vs. definite distinction. As if speaker and listener were obtaining different meanings from the same utterance, and yet that was considered a succesful exchange. To me it sounds weird. >Maybe it would be more helpful to think of things this way: > >A; le broda goi ko'a cu brode >B: ko'a mo > >Whatever question B is trying to ask, it remains the case that >ko'a has a guaranteed referent, even if B cannot identify ko'a. But B's question is not very sensible if B doesn't know what {ko'a} refers to. In that case B should ask {ko'a ki'a}. >I contend that B could equally well have said "le broda cu mo", >where "le broda" would have a referent guaranteed either (a) >by B being able to identify it, or (b) by it being coreferential >with the {le broda} in A's utterance. I agree they are equivalent. I just don't think A is being asked to provide identifying/specifying information. A can provide any relevant information about {le broda}/{ko'a}, but that is not what B wants to know when asking "which?". You are concentrating on which-questions to rectify failed identification, (I think those are {ki'a}) but which-questions can also be initiatory: do zmanei le mo mlana be le ckana Which side of the bed do you prefer? >If B instead uses {le mlatu}, then this could refer to the same >cat as A was talking about, even if B can identify it by no >unique property other than the property of being talked about >by A, but there is no guarantee of this coreference; A would >have to glork it from context. > >{ri du ma} works okay though. I think {ri du ma} or {ko'a du ma} or {le mlatu cu du ma} do work because as you say it is hard to find an alternative intention for the question. {ri mo}, {ko'a mo} and {le mlatu cu mo} on the other hand don't work for me, because it could just mean "tell me something more about this cat". But I think {le mo mlatu} works perfectly, and I find it more elegant than {du}. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com