Received: from mail-lb0-f189.google.com ([209.85.217.189]:59922) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XXkgK-0004Mu-Vq for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:36:40 -0700 Received: by mail-lb0-f189.google.com with SMTP id z11sf297341lbi.6 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:36:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=7PaINRCPwjBtVr95aMFbDQxQFXP67mm4uYDns2khFak=; b=j8mEAUxFmJz2Gw2aFkfRy/90cQpoUo8DNM0du2hDKesvZScNyl1MGwWUFmlxrdjgHT 2B3PWW7g+D5ODxGwSZyFhPcm4tpYxSnvJdyINS/4gAvyt0HzPxOFx6B0WRkWdsV4s9em YLhbEBPQF/TK50oDB4gXc0b/qH1JhcxcA4NjLSwtZWwyH8tMLDmrnkQNk/fszCPe+5w+ 2YOWTumZ41y4trZaQNOTdeLEgfD/4f56jQoE6dI6ZaYAcM4zcTCMegtaARlLCVBkcnYP 1G/7yKdK5FIDSdCBRCvTzZQyj/69i36AT58nIfVcR4KhfQcaLFx2EzZgAT5NL+4ISv02 Z7Bw== X-Received: by 10.152.28.66 with SMTP id z2mr525730lag.3.1411796185279; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:36:25 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.170.225 with SMTP id ap1ls395609lac.57.gmail; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:36:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.29.130 with SMTP id k2mr2949853lah.3.1411796183890; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x244.google.com (mail-lb0-x244.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::244]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fa3si251964lbc.0.2014.09.26.22.36.23 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::244 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::244; Received: by mail-lb0-f196.google.com with SMTP id l4so4714730lbv.3 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:36:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.42.194 with SMTP id q2mr11695859lal.75.1411796183754; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.4.163 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:36:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 09:36:23 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni} From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::244 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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=001a11c3557a0730230504056a19 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c3557a0730230504056a19 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2014-09-27 4:12 GMT+04:00 mukti : > 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)* > > i mi zu'edji lo ka te vecnu pa karce noi da'inai tolkargu (there is car such that i intend to buy it and btw it is cheap) i mi zu'edji lo ka te vecnu lo karce poi ei tolkargu (I intend to buy a car that should be cheap) ? It seems to me that you are talking about "any"/"some" distinction that mi'a were talking earlier. Here is its resume: http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences_lists/show/1351/jbo > 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. > -- 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. --001a11c3557a0730230504056a19 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2014-09-27 4:12 GMT+04:00 mukti <shunpiker@gmail.com>:=

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:

&q= uot;Me voy a casar con una mujer que tiene mucho dinero." (specific= )=C2=A0 =C2=A0

"Me voy a casar con una mujer que ten= ga mucho dinero." (non-specific)

Without a relative clause, however the distinction is unmarked:=C2=A0

&q= uot;Me voy a casar con una mujer." (may be specific or non-specific= )

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

A simila= r distinction is made in English:=C2=A0

&q= uot;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 ch= eap and have low mileage." (disambiguated as non-specific)

<= /blockquote>

i mi zu'edji lo ka t= e vecnu pa karce noi da'inai tolkargu (there is =C2=A0car such that i i= ntend to buy it and btw it is cheap)
i mi zu'edji lo ka te ve= cnu lo karce poi ei tolkargu (I intend to buy a car that should be cheap)
?

It seems to me that you are talking about "any"= /"some" distinction that mi'a were talking earlier. Here is i= ts resume:
http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences_lists/show/1351/jbo
=C2=A0

In both English and Spanish, it is the=C2=A0non-specific case tha= t is marked.

The English definite article, "the", often dis= cussed in relation with specificity, subordinates the consideration of whet= her the speaker has referents in mind to the question of whether the refere= nts are identifiable in context.=C2=A0

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

Here the indefinite article ("a") indicates that, regardless o= f the speaker's state of mind, context is not sufficient to disambiguat= e 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} 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:

  1. including a claim that they= have referents in mind
  2. withholding a claim that the properties of description are predicated of t= he referents

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= } surpassed {le}. It has continued to gain in popularity: By 2012, {lo} rec= eived 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 bee= n 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 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:

{m= i djica lo nu terve'u lo karce poi mi nau pensi tu'a ke'a} =C2= =A0

I'm interested in knowing what other people thin= k about all of this. (But less interested, perhaps, in whether or not they&= #39;re currently thinking about it.)

mi'e la mukti mu'o
<= /font>

--
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+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.

--
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.
--001a11c3557a0730230504056a19--