Received: from mail-wi0-f189.google.com ([209.85.212.189]:38472) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XXtIa-0000fn-92 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:48:44 -0700 Received: by mail-wi0-f189.google.com with SMTP id ho1sf75594wib.26 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:48:28 -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=3fdkrVEM21hYwpQOXkvAa6lkMP9gruXXdvBhfwj+qpY=; b=F6M/FAKGKzQqQP2ZuZz5hBEWjXa5o6ja8o75pEbE4eSNtefSokCsRA1zYbangnsKdA qLSyPRixIw0XdVH7M/bLbty7HHwRJ6ZFNO4L0amSm9hPZzBQAQkfeBdRyLanapmdw15l qw+Np0HA8QB7utlb/G039v8vPN8n860T8Sr+XWqtj/Xmv63oYGhz9/FvHpzNOGiigV1K QyqkLUAvf1pSmKHgFVg88t0PBqGGboj85+zPAH4tCiL/mn9d+bEEuNkQT1bMty/t4Smn fItOD1NQAMpJ3poq4aA/Dg0pAL3mGF3bVtIAqVMr7RxbaBW60U/KwNLGLt0x4fRwXWcX 7zvw== X-Received: by 10.180.106.35 with SMTP id gr3mr3678wib.8.1411829308415; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:48:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.85.41 with SMTP id e9ls263742wiz.16.gmail; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:48:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.181.23.197 with SMTP id ic5mr1404976wid.7.1411829307933; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x232.google.com (mail-lb0-x232.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::232]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fa3si102007lbc.0.2014.09.27.07.48.27 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::232; Received: by mail-lb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id z12so13436971lbi.9 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:48:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.22.200 with SMTP id g8mr27488439laf.1.1411829307804; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.25.229 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:48:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:48:27 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni} From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::232 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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=089e0158c31a60117905040d209c X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --089e0158c31a60117905040d209c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, 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)* > > Suppose the context is that there are two women with a lot of money, and I know that I'm going to marry one of them, but I still don't know which one. Then that sentence is still correct, but is it specific? > "Me voy a casar con una mujer que tenga mucho dinero." *(non-specific)* > > A bit more far fetched, but suppose there is a woman that I know I'm going to marry. She doesn't have a lot of money yet, but she probably will at some point, and I won't marry her until she does. Is it non-specific? (Arguably still yes, but the non-specificity is among versions of the same woman rather than among different women.) > 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)* > > Suppose the context is that there are ten cars in the parking lot, all of them cheap and with low mileage, and I have decided that I'm going to buy one of them, although I haven't decided which one yet. Is it disambiguated as specific? *Or:* "It should be cheap and have low mileage."* (disambiguated as > non-specific)* > > Suppose there is a certain car I intend to buy, but I still don't know whether it's cheap and has low mileage or not, but as far as I know it should. Is it non-specific? > In both English and Spanish, it is the *non-specific *case that is marked. > Is that because the indicative mood is less marked than the subjunctive/should-mood? I think these are better treated as indications of specificity rather than as marks as such, since they can be overridden by context. A more definite mark for specificity is "certain" in English, or "cierto/a" in Spanish: "Me voy a casar con cierta mujer", "I intend to buy certain car". (Or "this" in a more informal register: "there's this car I intend to buy.") 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. > It could have (at least three levels of specificity: "I want to rob certain bank." (completely specific) "I want to rob any of certain banks." "I want to rob any bank." (completely non specific) The one in the middle may apply when I don't have any specific bank in mind, but I do have some restrictions in mind that the bank should fulfill. > 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.) > The main reason I stopped using "le" is that I never knew when it was supposed to be used. I would spend an inordinately long time trying to decide each time I had to use a gadri which one to use, I was never completely satisfied that I had made the right choice, and in the end it didn't seem to make much difference anyway. So I abandoned "le" at least until I have a clear idea of how it's supposed to work. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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. --089e0158c31a60117905040d209c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, mukti <shunpiker@gmail.com><= /span> 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)= =C2=A0 =C2=A0

Suppose the context i= s that there are two women with a lot of money, and I know that I'm goi= ng to marry one of them, but I still don't know which one. Then that se= ntence is still correct, but is it specific?

"Me voy a casar con una mujer que tenga mucho dinero.&q= uot; (non-specific)

A bit mo= re far fetched, but suppose there is a woman that I know I'm going to m= arry. She doesn't have a lot of money yet, but she probably will at som= e point, and I won't marry her until she does. Is it non-specific? (Arg= uably still yes, but the non-specificity is among versions of the same woma= n rather than among different women.)
=C2=A0

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

"Me= voy a casar con una mujer." (may be specific or non-specific)<= /p>

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

A similar dist= inction is made in English:=C2=A0

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

<= i>And then either: "It's cheap and has low mileage." (= disambiguated as specific)


=
Suppose the context is that there are ten cars in the parking lo= t, all of them cheap and with low mileage, and I have decided that I'm = going to buy one of them, although I haven't decided which one yet. Is = it disambiguated as specific?=C2=A0

Or: "It should be cheap and have low mil= eage." (disambiguated as non-specific)

Suppose there is a certain car I intend to buy, but I still= don't know whether it's cheap and has low mileage or not, but as f= ar as I know it should. Is it non-specific?
=C2=A0

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


Is that because the = indicative mood is less marked than the subjunctive/should-mood? I think th= ese are better treated as indications of specificity rather than as marks a= s such, since they can be overridden by context. A more definite mark for s= pecificity is "certain" in English, or "cierto/a" in Sp= anish: "Me voy a casar con cierta mujer", "I intend to buy c= ertain car". (Or "this" in a more informal register: "t= here's this car I intend to buy.")

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.=C2=A0

"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.

It could have (at least three levels = of specificity:

"I want to rob certain bank.&= quot; (completely specific)
"I want to rob any of certain ba= nks."=C2=A0
"I want to rob any bank." (completely = non specific)=C2=A0
=C2=A0
The one in the middle may ap= ply when I don't have any specific bank in mind, but I do have some res= trictions in mind that the bank should fulfill.=C2=A0

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 translato= rs) most of the time. If the distinction of speaker-oriented specificity we= re important, for example, and if the neglect of {le} were merely a matter = of conformism, I would expect to see more locutions like:

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

=

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.)

The main reason I = stopped using "le" is that I never knew when it was supposed to b= e used. I would spend an inordinately long time trying to decide each time = I had to use a gadri which one to use, I was never completely satisfied tha= t I had made the right choice, and in the end it didn't seem to make mu= ch difference anyway. So I abandoned "le" at least until I have a= clear idea of how it's supposed to work.

mu&#= 39;o mi'e xorxes

--
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.
--089e0158c31a60117905040d209c--