* Saturday, 2014-10-04 at 13:07 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 22:00 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com
> Does it unwrap "li mo'e lo broda" in any way?
Only in that it parses the sumti, yielding
broda(c0); [Fragment: [c0]]
cy no broda .i li mo'e cy no te'u lo'o
.
> > > > Hmm. I've been adopting {lo broda} == {zo'e noi broda} as absolute
> > > > dogma, so it's really making a side-claim that the referent(s)
> > > > broda(s). You think a more accurate dogma would be
> > > > {lo broda} == {zo'e noi ca'e broda}?
> > > No, I was thinking of "ca'e" as defining the new auxiliary variables
> > > introduced by the parsing.
> > I wouldn't say it's a definition exactly. That it brodas need not be
> > enough to pick the referent out uniquely, so I don't see that we can
> > take it as a definition.
>
> I think it should be enough "in context".
Uhoh.
So if there are five contextually relevant apples, you would never
understand {lo plise goi ko'a} to be referring to just one of them?
How about if, perhaps much later in the discourse, I clarified by saying
{ko'a pamei lo plise mumei}?
> > > But I do think that noi-clauses in general, and the noi-clause
> > > used in the espansion of "lo" in particular, have an illocutionary
> > > force different from assertions. I'm now thinking "zo'e noi sa'a
> > > broda" could be it.
> > Hmm. Could you spell out a bit more what this means? I'd interpret that
> > as "zo'e brodas, but this isn't the main point of my text", just making
> > explicit what's already implicit in relegating the assertion to
> > a noi-clause. I would take that kind of subtlety to be extralogical.
>
> Compare "ta" with "lo va dacti", which I take to be roughly equivalent.
> When a speaker uses "ta", are they making any claims just by saying "ta"? I
> don't think they are, they are just using a referring expression. When
> explaining what the speaker means when they say "ta broda", from a
> metalinguistic point of view, one can make some claims about the speech act
> that the speaker themself is not making, such as: "there is some object
> close to the listener such that the speaker is pointing at it, and the
> speaker is claiming of that object that it brodas", but the only claim made
> by the speaker is "it brodas", not "I'm pointing at it and it is close to
> you". Similarly, when the speaker says "lo broda cu brode", the speaker is
> only claiming that it brodes, and it is using the description "lo broda" in
> order for the listener to know what "it" refers to, not to make any claims
> about it. Or would you also expand "ti broda" as "It is close to you and
> I'm pointing at it. It brodas."?
>
> I would say that whatever claim there is in "lo broda" has the same kind of
> illocutionary force that a claim hidden in "ta", "mi", "do", "ko'a", etc.
This is about presuppositions, isn't it?
So {broda lo brode} ->
Presupposition: brode(c)
broda(,c)
(This is ignoring for now what you mention above about the
brode(_) having to determine c.)
Having a fully accurate way to render that in lojban, in the sense of
finding an utterance with that form but equivalent meaning to the
original, is probably too much to hope for (I don't think it's possible
in english, for example).
But I see that treating the presupposition as an editorial insertion *by
the translator* would make some sense. So although {sa'a cy brode .i
broda cy} would be a very odd thing to actually say, it could make sense
as a description of what a speaker means by {broda lo brode}. I guess
this is what you meant?
This does seem to be leading us to assigning subtly different meanings
to {lo broda} and {lo du noi broda}. Is that acceptable?
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature