Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r3bWM-00005bC; Sat, 5 Nov 94 05:10 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2693; Sat, 05 Nov 94 05:10:37 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2688; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 05:10:35 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2899; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 04:07:23 +0100 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 22:13:18 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: Cowan weighs in #1: specific, definite X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 840 Lines: 20 la djan cusku di'e > And holds that "a certain man" is specific; Jorge held that it was not. > I believe that "a certain man" is indeed specific, as the speaker's intention > fixes which man is meant, but it is not definite, because the listener has > no way of knowing. I withdraw my claim that it is not specific. Your explanation is very clear. > 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. 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?". Jorge