[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: Aesop's "The Wolf and the Crane"



On Monday, January 28, 2013 2:24:47 PM UTC+4, v4hn wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:43:54PM -0800, la gleki wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 9:07:21 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> This should be done with {bi'u nai} instead, if the explicitness is
> >> desired. It is somewhat of a shame that {lo bi'u nai} is as long as it is.

"the not-newly-introduced thing that brodas" can still refer to any number
of different individuals /in the universe of discourse/, not just the one
you're talking about in this specific sentence. {lo bi'u nai} has its
uses, but that's not one of them in my opinion.

Yes, but given that there is only one such object in the previous discourse  this {bi'unai} refers only to it.


> > I disagree. {le} is the specific article, he's referring to a specific
> > thing. This is the reason why {le} exists.
> >
>
> Even if so it has nothing to do with {bi'unai}. "specific thing" might
> solve the problem of "any"

Did you read the last discussion on that? No it does not fix "any",
whatever this is supposed to mean.

{lo} does  refer to "any" objects. But this range can be narrowed down to an appropriate interval mostly by using UI, VA etc.


> but not the problem of the definite article in
> the meaning of referring to things previously mentioned.

That's exactly what KOhA and one letter abbreviations are for.

Yes, I agree. KOhA and letter abbreviations do solve the problem.
 
If you don't like these, {le} is the best choice you have in my opinion
as it is rather close to at least the latter one. (if you think KOhAs do
not need to get defined with {goi} also to KOhA)

I really don't understand this whole movement that tries to prohibit {le}.

Probably because {le} has shown clear polysemy.
It was used for things like {le cribe} for teddy-bears as opposed to {lo cribe} which were supposed to be Ursidae mammals.
That's why selpa'i proposed moving {voi} to UI to have a cmavo for "described objects".
We can free {le} from this extraneous meaning. And ok, I'll use it.

But if {le} refers to apples that one has in mind who is that "one" who has them in mind? Is it the speaker? Then it sounds like an attitudinal.
And next. If {le} refers to things that I have in mind why should we suppose that this thing has been previously mentioned?
In this case we have to say {le bi'unai} anyway which will save no syllables although may be indeed more precise in meaning.


For me, {le} is a realization of Keith Donnellan's purely referential use of
definite descriptions and it is perfectly justified in its existance.
You don't need to state each time you refer to an individual that he brodas
one way or the other. It's absolutely enough to state it ones in the beginning.
Sadly, this concept is not much used in NatLangs in my experience.

v4hn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.