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

2014-09-28 19:33 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:

On 28 Sep 2014 01:43, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.

I don't know what having "nonspecific referents" is. If a specific referent is one underdetermined by the description, is a nonspecific one one that is fully determined by the description, e.g. a generic?

> Maybe "co'e" is meant to stand for the predicate "x1 is/are certain x2".

"x1 is a certain thing" would do as a gloss.

>> 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.

I would go for du'u, ke'a, ce'u, zo'u, zo'e, co'e, poi'i (which I'm amazed to see lives), su'o(i), mu'ei to be monosyllabic. Do the irci boys have a list of ideas?

I disagree on using mu'ei. Has anyone expaliend what {PAmu'ei PAnu broda} means when the two PA are different?

I prefer the new system that can easily turn from possible worlds to real world: http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=ELG._Subjunctives,_imaginary_situations

Other than that I m against repurposing any cmavo since this is not a conlang project but a live language.

You can remove CV, CVi and CVu not supported by usage for now from CLL 2.0.

>> 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.

{le} might or might not be a worthwhile abbreviation for {lo co'e voi'i}, but that's what it does seem to be an abbreviation of, so is not mysterious as to its meaning.

The only usage of {le} I can mostly see is something like an abbreviation of {lo bi'unai}.
But this {lo co'e voi'i} seems strange. if voi'i is the non-veridical NOI, then what is veridical? At what point bear goo stops being a bear?

I don't know about lei or le'i or le'e -- all those lV(')V gadri should, as Nick Nicholas would say, die in the arse.

--And.

--
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.