From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199411081959.AA11049@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: Cowan weighs in #1: specific, definite Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 14:59:03 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199411050424.AA09248@nfs1.digex.net> from "jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU" at Nov 4, 94 10:13:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1040 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 8 14:59:13 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab mi pu cusku di'e > > On this view, the "normalness" of "Which man?" is not a > > test of specificity but of definiteness: a listener who says "Which?" to > > an indefinite reference is legitimately asking for a referent, whereas the > > listener who says "Which?" to a definite reference is expressing his > confusion. la xorxes. cusku di'e > But since in Lojban indefiniteness is not marked, the Lojban equivalent of > "which?" would ask for specificity. The problem is that I can't think of > any good Lojban equivalent of "which?". In my opinion, the best equivalent of "Which?" referring to a indefinite reference is a question involving "mo": A: mi viska le bi'u nanmu A: I saw a certain man. B: le ?mo nanmu B: Which man? A: blanu A: The blue one. Here A refers to a certain man, disclaiming connection with any previously mentioned man, so +specific -definite. B asks for further attributes of the man which will identify him. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.