From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed May 17 05:28:02 1995
Date:         Wed, 17 May 1995 03:16:28 -0400
From: DPT@HUMA1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: A modest proposal #2: verdicality
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <Sk3Jmmu7zhJ.A.jpE.rt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

I wrote:
 > > Well, gosh.  That would free up some prime cmavo real estate, wouldn't
 > > it :-).

jorge@phyast.pitt.edu writes:
 > I think the distinction between {lo} and {le} is quite significant.
 > {lo} is necessarily veridical, {le} allows non-veridical use, but
 > it will mostly be veridical, and yet in most cases even though it is
 > a veridical description, it can't be replaced with {lo}. So, even though
 > the veridicality property is there, it is not the relevant distinction.
 > It is simply a consequence of a more important one.

This sounds good, although I'm still not sure {lo} must necessarily be
verdical.  In some cases information must be inferred in the use of
{lo}, as in your use of {lo cnino} I pointed out (unless that was a
misuse); why not the meaning of the description?

I'll try to come up with a good example.

 > > I'm not sure we should be so hasty.  {lo broda} can be glossed {da poi
 > > broda}.  Can {le broda} similarly be glossed {ko'a poi broda} (or
 > > perhaps {by poi broda})?
 >
 > Rather {by voi broda}, or {ro da voi broda}.

{voi} must have been added since the "Places" paper was written.  Is
there more to its use than just the one-sentence description in the
cmavo list?

In any case, {ro da voi broda} seems odd.  There's explicitly a
quantifier there.  Does the {voi} cancel it in some way?

 > > If {ko'a poi broda} is not a legitimate
 > > alternative for {le broda goi ko'a}, I think it should be.
 >
 > It is in 99% of the cases. But you are still allowed to use
 > {le broda} to refer to somthing that is not even remotely a broda,
 > as long as context makes it clear what you're talking about.

What's an example of when you'd want to do this?  That is, can you think
of a context in which {le broda cu broda} isn't true in any sense
whatsoever?  That would seem extremely strange to me.

 > > Is there a reason one of these should be primary over the other?
 >
 > In {le broda goi ko'a}, we already know what {le broda} refers to,
 > and you are telling us that {ko'a} will refer to the same thing from
 > now on.
 >
 > {ko'a poi broda} is not very clear. If {ko'a} is already assigned,
 > you may be making a subselection to those ko'a which are broda.
 > ...

Hmm, I need to ponder this more.  There seem to be two uses of {poi}
involved: subselection and definition (as with {da}).

<ponder>

OK, I think I understand now.  {poi} means subselection, while {noi},
by providing more information, means definition (in an appropriate
context, e.g., {da noi li'o} if {da} is going to be used again).  But
if the variable {da} is not used again, the two are equivalent.

So the equivalent of {le broda goi ko'a} might be {ko'a noi le broda},
at least if {ko'a} is not already in use.

So what does {voi} mean?  What's an example of its use?

--Dylan