Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo", or something else to do with specificity?

The specificity comes from the {co'e}.

Even if "co'e" is some specific predicate that the speaker has in mind, I don't think "lo co'e" has to have specific referents, since any predicate could have non specific referents. Maybe "co'e" is meant to stand for the predicate "x1 is/are certain x2". 

I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully?

I don't think it has seen much use at all. I'm sure the irci boys will soon find a better use for it since they seem to be re-purposing all those wasted one syllable cmavo like "tau", "lau" and such.

 

The nonveridicality is a natural consequence of the identificatory function of the relative clause.

In other words, {le} is specificity (co'e) plus identificatory clause (voi'i).

I think I would rather have a predicate that meant "certain" instead of a gadri for specificity. Or at least we could define "le" in terms of that predicate.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.