From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Sep 1 20:03:25 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 1 Sep 1993 14:06:11 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 1 Sep 1993 14:06:05 -0400 Message-Id: <199309011806.AA18756@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8735; Wed, 01 Sep 93 14:04:31 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9563; Wed, 01 Sep 93 14:06:55 EDT Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 19:03:25 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: Mr Andrew Rosta Subject: Re: TECH: specifity & definiteness X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 01 Sep 93 12:40:50 D.) <9309011713.AA93522@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> Status: O X-Status: > (This is John Cowan; snark is temporarily down.) > la .and. cusku di'e > > I quite agree: specificity is distinct from definiteness. Specific > > referents may or may not be definite. > I still don't understand this. What is an an example of a specific > indefinite reference (in English)? "I bought a book". "A book" is specific, but indefinite, for I do not presume that you can identify the referent. "I bought the book" is specific and definite - I am presuming you can identify the referent of _the book_. > > Definiteness is non-truth- > > conditional, so appropriate for a .UI cmavo, > > How's that again? "I saw the man" entails "I saw a man", but not vice > versa, so truth conditions are definitely affected. This is +specific entailing -specific, not +definite entailing -definite. Definiteness concerns whether the referent is identifiable by the addressee. At this point I ought to acknowledge the great variation of uses of 'definite' in linguistics. I am using it in the sense I've just given. > > whereas specificity > > affects truth conditions, so I would be inclined to treat le v. > > lo as specific v. non-specific (though I do not understand what the > > distinction between le/lo officially is). > > Again, with feeling: > > Remember that although we loosely refer to LE cmavo as articles, they are > really more like pronoun+relatives: "lo kanba" is not "a goat" but > "that-which-really is-a-goat", because "kanba" is a stative verb, not a noun. This is quite a good analysis of *English* articles! This is roughly the way determiners work in English, too. > le/lei/le'i descriptions need not describe accurately, and are implicitly > restricted to those things the speaker has in mind. > > lo/loi/lo'i descriptions must describe accurately on pain of failing to refer, > and are unrestricted. *the light dawns on me* Okay: I do indeed see now that it is reasonable to say that the _le_ series is +specific & the _lo_ series -specific. Definiteness has nothing to do with it. > > I don't, incidentally, > > see that bihu/bihunai corresponds to definite/indefinite - or > > rather, I do see that it doesn't. > > Correct. It is a discourse marker. Yes, but definiteness - "& incidentally the referent of this word is identifiable by you" - ought also to be a discourse marker, I feel. > > > > Well, actually "zo'e" does well there, since "zo'e" and "le co'e" mean > much > > > > the same thing. Both of them refer to something specific-but-unspecifie d. > > > > There is the difference that "le co'e" keeps the force of "le": one or > more > > > > individuals, probably not a set or mass. > > > > > > I'm not sure I believe this. I thought that {zo'e} was totally > > > ambiguous, and could be specific or non-specific, universally > > > or existentially or exact-numerically quantified, or any other > > > (censored) thing. > > > > This is my understanding too. > > Yes, you are both right. Nonetheless, pragmatically "zo'e" does work > pretty well as a substitute for the non-quantificational sense of English > "something". You should give examples. _Something_ can be +spec or -spec, as, I suppose, can _zo'e_. I agree that the +/-specific distinction is only relevant in certain 'irrealis' contexts ("I want a book", "I tried to think of something", "I will wed someone"). In realis contexts ("I wed someone", "I had a book", "I managed to think of something") the +spec & -spec readings are pragmatically though not truth- conditionally equivalent. ------ mihe laho da. And da.