Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Romaji #### <nxt101@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <5f92b40a-d8a7-449b-b479-68fbf11d7678@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com>
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1123_1370345160.1411780170474"
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_1123_1370345160.1411780170474
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I'm only a beginner, but I tend to use le quite a bit more often, since I 
typically have a particular object in mind.
I don't get why lo is used so much, given how general and vague it is.

On Friday, September 26, 2014 8:12:31 PM UTC-4, mukti wrote:
>
> 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_1123_1370345160.1411780170474
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I'm only a beginner, but I tend to use le quite a bit more=
 often, since I typically have a particular object in mind.<div>I don't get=
 why lo is used so much, given how general and vague it is.<br><br>On Frida=
y, September 26, 2014 8:12:31 PM UTC-4, mukti wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr">


<p>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:<br></p>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p>"Me voy =
a casar con una mujer que tiene mucho dinero." <i>(specific)</i>&nbsp; &nbs=
p;</p></blockquote><blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;paddi=
ng:0px"><p>"Me voy a casar con una mujer que tenga mucho dinero." <i>(non-s=
pecific)</i></p></blockquote>
<p>Without a relative clause, however the distinction is unmarked:&nbsp;</p=
>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p>"Me voy =
a casar con una mujer."<i> (may be specific or non-specific)</i></p></block=
quote><p>(Note: My Spanish is limited and I owe this example to "A New Refe=
rence Grammar of Modern Spanish".)</p><p>A similar distinction is made in E=
nglish:&nbsp;</p>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p>"I inten=
d to buy a car." <i>(may be specific or non-specific)</i></p><p><i>And then=
 either:</i> "It's cheap and has low mileage." <i>(disambiguated as specifi=
c)</i></p><p><i>Or:</i> "It should be cheap and have low mileage."<i> (disa=
mbiguated as non-specific)</i></p></blockquote>
<p>In both English and Spanish, it is the&nbsp;<i>non-specific </i>case tha=
t is marked.</p><p>The English definite article, "the", often discussed in =
relation with specificity, subordinates the consideration of whether the sp=
eaker has referents in mind to the question of whether the referents are id=
entifiable in context.&nbsp;<br></p>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p>"I want =
to rob a bank." <i>(may be specific or non specific)</i></p></blockquote>
<p>Here the indefinite article ("a") indicates that, regardless of the spea=
ker's state of mind, context is not sufficient to disambiguate the referenc=
e: There may not be an obvious referent, or there may be more than one.</p>
<p>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} w=
hich 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 doe=
s not insist on either:</p>
<p></p><ol><li><span style=3D"line-height:18px">including a claim that they=
 have referents in mind</span><br></li><li><span style=3D"line-height:18px"=
>withholding a claim that the properties of description are predicated of t=
he referents</span></li></ol><p></p>
<p>In 2002, the ratio of {le} over {lo} in the corpus reached its zenith, b=
ut by 2005 -- within a year of BPFK's vote on the gadri proposal -- {lo} su=
rpassed {le}. It has continued to gain in popularity: By 2012, {lo} receive=
d ten times as much usage as {le}.</p>
<p>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 bee=
n unduly discouraged from using it.</p><p>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 tr=
anslators) most of the time. If the distinction of speaker-oriented specifi=
city were important, for example, and if the neglect of {le} were merely a =
matter of conformism, I would expect to see more locutions like:<br></p>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p>{mi djic=
a lo nu terve'u lo karce poi mi nau pensi tu'a ke'a} &nbsp;</p></blockquote=
><p>I'm interested in knowing what other people think about all of this. (B=
ut less interested, perhaps, in whether or not they're currently thinking a=
bout it.)</p>
<p>mi'e la mukti mu'o<br></p></div></blockquote></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_1123_1370345160.1411780170474--