From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Mar 30 06:55:52 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 91849 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2005 14:55:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2005 14:55:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2005 14:55:52 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DGeYl-0004gM-3A for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:52:43 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DGeYQ-0004ff-KJ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:52:23 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DGeYD-0004fQ-Th for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:52:09 -0800 Received: from web81304.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.79]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DGeY9-0004eY-QF for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:52:09 -0800 Message-ID: <20050330145134.35539.qmail@web81304.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:51:34 PST Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:51:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9711 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: "zo'e" = ("unimportant","obvious" and ?"unknown") X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24067 --- opi_lauma wrote: > > > I tried to classify cases when one does not use > concrete sumti, and > replace it (in some cases) by "zo'e". > > Let us consider the following statements > (cases). Situation will be > classified by saying which statement is true > and which is false. > > A : speaker know what is sumti. > B : speaker want to know what is sumti. > C : speaker think that listener know what is > sumti. > D : speaker think that listener wants to know > what is sumti. > E : speaker want that listener know what is > sumti. > > Not all combinations are possible. I understand > "want to know" as > "want to get information" about what is sumti. > It means that "if > C=true then D=false". > > According to the grammar zo'e (need to/can ?) > be used if sumti is > obvious or not important. The first thing to notice is that {zo'e} is (often) an alternative to just leaving the place blank, so {zo'e} is at best "can be used." Secondly, {zo'e} is also an alternative to {su'o da}, but with a different (not totally clear) rhetorical force. I tend to think the {zo'e}, like the blank, discourages the question "Which one?," which {su'o da} implicitly raises (even though it does not require that the speaker have an answer). As for the situations you list, B is not appropriate because it is only the speaker who picks the form used. I take A to be neutral in the sense that the speaker may use {zo'e} or blank -- or {su'o da} for that matter -- whether he knows the fill or not, if it is a "doesn't matter" case. Your list also leaves out (or does not distinguish) the "doesn't matter" cases -- which may be more common than the "obvious" ones -- in which the speaker may use one of these fillers even if he thinks the listener wants to know what goes in there and he knows the answer (A & D true). Clearly, so long as A is true, the speaker will not use fillers when E and D are true (if he is being cooperative -- he may, of course have reasons for withholding the information, "need to know" for example). > 1.If we say that "sumti is obvious" it means > that speaker know what is > sumti (A = true) and listener also know that (C > = true). > 2.If we say that "sumti is not important" ,I > think, we need to mean > that "it is not important to say" (in the given > contest) what is > sumti. This case should contain first case as a > partial case, isn't? > Really, if sumti is obvious it is not important > to say what is sumti. > The second reason, why it can be not important > to say what is sumti is > that listener does not need this information, > while this information > is not interesting and/or not necessary for him > (D = false). > > In English one use in this case passive > construction: > For example: "Our car has been bought." > We say like this if: > > 1. It is obvious who bought our car, because we > knew, for example, > that it should be bought by some person, > listener just did not know > whether it is already bought or not (A = true, > C = true). > 2. The second reason is that speaker thing that > listener does not want > (does not need) to know who bought our car, for > him it is only > important whether car was bought or not (D = > false). > > It means that one need to use "zo'e" if: > (C = true) or ((C = false) and (D = false)) > > What is not clear for me is by what speaker > need to replace sumti if > it is unknown by speaker and listener want to > know what is sumti. For > example if I say: > > Somebody bought our car. > > I means that I do not know who did it. > Now we get into pragmatics along a Gricean line. If I do not say who did something and it is significant to say who did it if I know, then it must be (if I am being cooperative, etc.) I do not have the information. It does not much matter how I avoid saying this, although using "something" or the like does suggest (weakly, I think, in this context) that questions will get more information even if not identification. So, either blank or {zo'e} is appropriate when A is false and D is true -- and it is not unimportant.