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 m0r4zTt-00004zC; Wed, 9 Nov 94 00:57 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0130; Wed, 09 Nov 94 00:57:48 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0127; Wed, 9 Nov 1994 00:57:48 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7571; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 23:54:33 +0100 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 14:59:03 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Cowan weighs in #1: specific, definite X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199411050424.AA09248@nfs1.digex.net> from "jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU" at Nov 4, 94 10:13:18 pm Content-Length: 1095 Lines: 33 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.