Received-SPF: none (google.com: phma@bezitopo.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=107.14.166.231;
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:34:17 -0400
Message-ID: <23148286.aPXrplANTa@caracal>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-35-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com>
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com>
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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On Friday, September 26, 2014 17:12:31 mukti wrote:
<li'o>
> 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.)

Here are some verses from 1 Samuel 9 (which la mukti has been reviewing):

\v 3 .i cirko le fetxasli pe la .kic. noi patfu la .ca'ul .i ri cusku lu ko se 
kansa lo selfu lo nu sisku le xasli li'u la .ca'ul.

The writer has specific donkeys in mind.

\v 5 .i tolcliva la .tsuf .i la .ca'ul. cusku lu .e'u mi'o xruti mi'o 
.itezu'ebo naku lo patfu be mi cu tolmo'i fi le xasli gi'e xanka tu'a mi'o li'u 
le selfu noi kansa .sy

Saul has his father specifically in mind, but he has only one father, so 
there's no need to signal the fact. But Kish may have other jennies who 
weren't lost. (Kish's lost donkeys, like the one Balaam rode, were female, for 
which Hebrew uses a completely different word.)

\v 6 .i dafsku lu le cevni nanmu cu xabju lo vi tcadu .i ra goi ko'a mutce 
misno .i ro lo se cusku be ko'a cu binxo lo jetnu je'usai .i .e'u mi'o vitke 
ko'a .i.a'o ko'a cusku lo sedu'u mi'o klama fo makau .ei kei mi'o li'u

The servant knows who the man of God is, but Saul doesn't know who he is or 
even that there is one nearby.

\v 15 ni'o ca lo prulamdei be lo nu la .ca'ul. tolcliva kei la .iaves. 
tolmipri fi la .cmuel. lo nu ri tirna kei
\v 16 fe lu ba za lo djedi be li pa mi benji fo'a goi le nanmu pe lo la 
.beniamin. tumla do li'o li'u

How can God *not* have a specific one in mind? :)

Pierre
-- 
lo ponse be lo mruli ku po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko

-- 
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.