On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Pierre Abbat
<phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Thursday 17 February 2011 15:58:43 .arpis. wrote:
> I was aware that {roda} isn't restricted to people or physical objects, but
> it's difficult to express that in English.
>
> It's interesting that you refer to a "universe of discourse". Not having
> any strong background in linguistics, philosophy, or logic, I don't know
> what precisely this means, but it seems like it's what I'm thinking about.
>
> In English, when I say "Everyone's going home.", I am first of all probably
> exaggerating but second of all I really mean "Everyone [of the set who
> isn't me in the relevant location] is going home". It's like I said "roda
> [poi co'e] cu cliva".
>
> Does the universe of discourse always consist of all things that can
> possibly be talked about?
No. Suppose five people meet at my house and we discuss computers and also
mention each other. As the conversation winds down, I say "ro da cu
zdakla". "ro da" refers to both computers and the five of us, but does not
include the planet Saturn or a unicorn. I could say "ro zo'e cu zdakla",
leaving it up to the listener to grice what "zo'e" refers to.
Pierre
I respectfully disagree. Da and friends are specifically existential variables. If they are not qualified with NOI or GOI, or some other mechanism, "ro da" MUST refer to everything, talked about or not. I would prefer "ro zo'e" or even "lo romei" to unqualified "ro da" if you are only talking about somethings in the universe. The purpose of "da" is to make existential claims, and youundercut that if you use it for something else. (So yes, "ro prenu cu xebni mi" and not "roda xebni mi" for "everybody hates me")
--gejyspa