Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:50:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710021350.IAA21645@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: LE and VOI X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2660 Lines: 63 Jorge: > >What I really want to say is something like {le co`e cu > >mlatu gi`e xekri} or {le broda cu mlatu gi`e xekri} - I > >want to refer to something without giving a description of > >it. > > {le co'e} works great. I think that {ko'a} means {le co'e} > when it is not goied. The trouble with both of these is that they might induce the listener to look around for an antecedent. [But see below.] > >Anyway, here's an example of a specific veridical "indefinite": > >"I will show John a book". I want this claim to be false if I will > >not show John _War & Peace_, even if I do show him _Madame > >Bovary_. That is, I want "a book" to refer to W&.teoP, but I don't > >want to bother saying this (perhaps it's not relevant to do so). > > That is not the most normal interpretation for that sentence in > English, though. I think I kind of get an idea of what you mean, > but then for me the intentionality of "will" gets in the way. I tend > to understand your sentence as "there is a book such that > I intend to show it to John", then it is false if you show him > a different one from the one you intended. But if "will" is > only working as a future marker, then I don't see how your > truth conditions can work for that sentence. If you change > it to past tense: "I showed John a book", I can't get that > sentence to be false if you didn't show him the book that > you have in mind but another one: to your audience the > sentence is true even if you are lying to yourself in your > own mind. All I can do is try to persuade you that you have overlooked the true facts... Consider "There's going to be a brilliant film on the telly tomorrow". That can be interpreted nonspecifically, e.g. if I know that the network always schedules brillliant films for Fridays. Or it can be interpreted specifically, e.g. if I know that Barry Lyndon is going to be shown. If the hearer understands it as specific, they may ask "Which one?", but would not ask such a question if they assume a nonspecific interpretation. > >The only sure way of saying this that I know of is to use: > >"le meaningless-brivla cu ge ba se jarco mi la djon gi cukta". > > Yes, that's how it should be, since you're really making the two > claims about your referent. I think that > ko'a ge ba se jarco mi la djon gi cukta > works for that. Perhaps {ba`e ko`a} is kinder on the hearer, though it's a bit cumbersome. Also, since for nonsecifics we have the triplet lo mlatu cu xekri lo xekri cu mlatu da ge xekri gi mlatu it would be nice to have a counterpart of the first two (i.e. a gadri version) for specific indefinites/veridicals. --And