Received: from mail-ie0-f192.google.com ([209.85.223.192]:64021) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XXfcs-0002zd-Sb for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:12:43 -0700 Received: by mail-ie0-f192.google.com with SMTP id tp5sf1755428ieb.19 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:12:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=EIOxPyYYegLg7KfWlZBsd0XUeNocYsOb++mAU9hO0lY=; b=GwwaX7eg+VTzthm7Yspwb4GH0uG7vstQkgFcFZTonJuUm4wzncNa7ZTMSU3UBpuxFO aQkCBUzO3mY7UrhS1Z7tSKIUXAxIKj9EOni2Z9hrgf1QXZnoRRLZb4xbqbAVzgPf+Dxv 1K1OgMyKykiO7Jmfz5c2f2/3R9nj2OR59IftLjB6HkYUixSHvdPA7dZJjatPSwI1c8wv ohmb7JP02/et5qaUYOnbR7bDTjc0Or/5ISvXRjMzmYiZ8JcucfVx7wKzlH0h6NJkbTLG VnT+0vivEfcInBCuEbiMtcO6UtTX+VnD4/R3mJlNxuT1Msw0+zMd8Nhyh0m2a/bgzK01 Bwtg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=EIOxPyYYegLg7KfWlZBsd0XUeNocYsOb++mAU9hO0lY=; b=Wgo8fwW9Q/Y0O+b0YqQsiqphIXzQjP/vhFNqMLqlB1LA9FvqQVl8+1qjCip/odb42P jZwxrdqEcBcBX2MZyysCu3RS2NDf/IAfl3yITHkE4iM9s1Z0lyIhC4P3Hq6/sM3QttMd oPAmHOOYgnl0aXKwvEGsYNTlFLlbvALe9hjD9wwmuGC5LoBOLk0M3oW6q2hVB13KIDNQ tTWsBiw3PUA2hasKQRU9qAB67AJnA/jkRFPJ9GfYZC/QzWnk+zePeXQAW6FGPb3K0m+5 uEBBlX4EdBiSiIsiKshkfBn7jMpxkty2jSs7fspWVNry5GHryJlVrzZPnk6zhbVjfqqd G9nw== X-Received: by 10.140.93.79 with SMTP id c73mr18691qge.9.1411776752400; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.28.4 with SMTP id 4ls467103qgy.60.gmail; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:12:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.23.228 with SMTP id 91mr21787qgp.19.1411776751877; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:12:31 -0700 (PDT) From: mukti To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: Subject: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni} MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: shunpiker@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_917_1845786329.1411776751069" X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- ------=_Part_917_1845786329.1411776751069 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Some languages do not mark a distinction between referents a speaker has in mind. Others only mark it in special situations. Spanish, for example, makes a distinction in noun phrases with relative clauses: "Me voy a casar con una mujer que tiene mucho dinero." *(specific)* "Me voy a casar con una mujer que tenga mucho dinero." *(non-specific)* Without a relative clause, however the distinction is unmarked: "Me voy a casar con una mujer."* (may be specific or non-specific)* (Note: My Spanish is limited and I owe this example to "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish".) A similar distinction is made in English: "I intend to buy a car." *(may be specific or non-specific)* *And then either:* "It's cheap and has low mileage." *(disambiguated as specific)* *Or:* "It should be cheap and have low mileage."* (disambiguated as non-specific)* In both English and Spanish, it is the *non-specific *case that is marked. The English definite article, "the", often discussed in relation with specificity, subordinates the consideration of whether the speaker has referents in mind to the question of whether the referents are identifiable in context. "I want to rob a bank." *(may be specific or non specific)* Here the indefinite article ("a") indicates that, regardless of the speaker's state of mind, context is not sufficient to disambiguate the reference: There may not be an obvious referent, or there may be more than one. In lojban, a speaker has a choice between {lo}, which includes no claim as to whether or not the speaker has specific referents in mind, and {le} which does include such a claim. In the gadri reform of 2004, the definition of {lo} was broadened such that it became possible for a speaker to use it in nearly any case where one might use {le}, provided that the speaker does not insist on either: 1. including a claim that they have referents in mind 2. withholding a claim that the properties of description are predicated of the referents In 2002, the ratio of {le} over {lo} in the corpus reached its zenith, but by 2005 -- within a year of BPFK's vote on the gadri proposal -- {lo} surpassed {le}. It has continued to gain in popularity: By 2012, {lo} received ten times as much usage as {le}. Every now and then, there is a discussion of why {le} is not used more. Some have suggested that it is a matter or fashion, or that people have been unduly discouraged from using it. It seems to me that reason that {le} is not often used is that the distinctions it bears have not, over the course of the last ten years, proven useful to speakers (and writers and translators) most of the time. If the distinction of speaker-oriented specificity were important, for example, and if the neglect of {le} were merely a matter of conformism, I would expect to see more locutions like: {mi djica lo nu terve'u lo karce poi mi nau pensi tu'a ke'a} I'm interested in knowing what other people think about all of this. (But less interested, perhaps, in whether or not they're currently thinking about it.) mi'e la mukti mu'o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------=_Part_917_1845786329.1411776751069 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Some languages do not mark a distinction between referents = a speaker has in mind. Others only mark it in special situations. Spanish, = for example, makes a distinction in noun phrases with relative clauses:
=

"Me voy a casar con una mujer que tiene mucho dinero." (speci= fic)   

"Me voy a casar con una mu= jer que tenga mucho dinero." (non-specific)

Without a relative clause, however the distinction is unmar= ked: 

"Me voy a casar con una mujer." (may be specific or non-speci= fic)

(Note: My Spanish is limited and I= owe this example to "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish".)

A similar distinction is made in English: 

"I intend to buy a car." (may be specific or non-specific)

And then either: "It's cheap and has low mileag= e." (disambiguated as specific)

Or: "It sh= ould be cheap and have low mileage." (disambiguated as non-specific)=

In both English and Spanish, it is the non-specific= case that is marked.

The English definite article, = "the", often discussed in relation with specificity, subordinates the consi= deration of whether the speaker has referents in mind to the question of wh= ether the referents are identifiable in context. 

"I want to rob a bank." (may be specific or non specific)=

Here the indefinite article ("a") indicates that, regardles= s of the speaker's state of mind, context is not sufficient to disambiguate= the reference: There may not be an obvious referent, or there may be more = than one.

In lojban, a speaker has a choice between {lo}, which inclu= des no claim as to whether or not the speaker has specific referents in min= d, and {le} which does include such a claim. In the gadri reform of 2004, t= he definition of {lo} was broadened such that it became possible for a spea= ker to use it in nearly any case where one might use {le}, provided that th= e speaker does not insist on either:

  1. including a = claim that they have referents in mind
  2. withholding a claim that the properties of description ar= e predicated of the referents

In 2002, the ratio of {le} over {lo} in the corpus reached = its zenith, but by 2005 -- within a year of BPFK's vote on the gadri propos= al -- {lo} surpassed {le}. It has continued to gain in popularity: By 2012,= {lo} received ten times as much usage as {le}.

Every now and then, there is a discussion of why {le} is no= t used more. Some have suggested that it is a matter or fashion, or that pe= ople have been unduly discouraged from using it.

It seem= s to me that reason that {le} is not often used is that the distinctions it= bears have not, over the course of the last ten years, proven useful to sp= eakers (and writers and translators) most of the time. If the distinction o= f speaker-oriented specificity were important, for example, and if the negl= ect of {le} were merely a matter of conformism, I would expect to see more = locutions like:

{mi djica lo nu terve'u lo karce poi mi nau pensi tu'a ke'a} &nb= sp;

I'm interested in knowing what other pe= ople think about all of this. (But less interested, perhaps, in whether or = not they're currently thinking about it.)

mi'e la mukti mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http:= //groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_917_1845786329.1411776751069--