From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Jul 10 13:36:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4100 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 20:36:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 20:36:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 20:36:20 -0000 Received: from m123-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com ([62.252.12.123] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 13Bk8Z-0000la-00 for lojban@egroups.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:26:43 +0100 To: Subject: RE: "which?" (was: RE: [lojban] centripetality: subset vs component Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:36:06 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000709153745.68690.qmail@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > > > > le mo mlatu i le blabi mlatu > > > > > Which cat? The white cat. > > > > > > > > > > lo mo mlatu i lo blabi mlatu > > > > > What kind of cat? A white cat. > > > >In an earlier message you said {lo mo mlatu} would ask "what kind?", > >and if that is correct then I don't see why it wouldn't extend to > >{le mo mlatu} too. > > Because the answer would not be appropriate. {le blabi mlatu} > is not an appropriate answer to a "what kind?" question. > It is a specific reference, it does not answer "what kind?" > > It is not {mo} that makes the difference. It is the article. Maybe the answer should just be {blabi}, then? The following exchange doesn't seem too unreasonable: A: le mlatu cu cliva B: le mlatu voi mo cu cliva ko'a voi mo mlatu cu cliva A: [insert appropriate answer] where B wants the nonveridical description of the cat to be elaborated, for whatever reason. At any rate, I can imagine a context where B might already know which cat A is talking about. > >And while I don't immediately see any substantial difference > >between {lo mo mlatu} and {lo mlatu cu mo}, > > I see differences. The first one is of course an ellipsized > question, for example: > > mi pu viska lo mlatu vi le panka > "I saw a cat in the park." > i lo mo mlatu > "What kind of cat?" > i lo blabi mlatu > "A white cat." I still can't see why this exchange would become silly if {lo} were changed to {le}. > Whereas {lo mlatu cu mo} is a full question, but very vague: > > lo mlatu cu mo > "What do cats do?" (Among many possible translations.) > lo mlatu cu blabi > "At least one cat is white." Okay. I had originally thought this a nonsubstantial difference, but on reflection I agree with you. > >one substantial > >difference between {le mo mlatu} and {le mlatu cu mo} would be > >that the answer to the former but not the latter would be > >nonveridical. > > I would say that is not the most important difference. > In {le mlatu cu mo}, the speaker has the cat identified > and asks for more information about that cat. They > already know which cat. Not necessarily. Pace the "in mind" characterization of {le}, I think all it does is say there's a specific referent, but not necessarily one that the speaker has identified (in the sense of being able to point to, pick out of a line-up, etc.). For example, if A says to B {le mlatu cu mo}, then A may be able to identify the referent only as "that which B has in mind". > In {le mo mlatu} the speaker is asking for information > that will make that sumti an appropriate reference, i.e. > they are asking for an answer that will allow them to > identify the cat, they are asking "which cat?". This seems more an assertion than an argument. I am unpersuaded. > > > and {le mo} has to mean "which?" > > > because of {le}'s specificity. It can't mean "what kind?". > > > >I don't yet see the reasoning behind this. > > Look at the possible answers. They don't correspond to > the answers to "what kind?". A: A certain cat leaves. B: A certain cat of what kind leaves? A: A certain cat of white colour leaves. -- what's wrong with that? > >Crucially, I don't > >see why {le mo} must be interpreted not merely as a request > >for more info about the referent but specifically as a > >request for the speaker to give sufficient info for the > >addressee to identify the referent. > > {le mo} asks the speaker to replace {mo} in such a way that > the sentence becomes true. For the sentence to be true, it > is necessary that {le broda} be identified. (a) This is true of any question containing a specific reference, not just ones with {le mo} in. (b) {le broda}'s referent must be identified for the truth to be evaluated, but it needn't be identified by the questioner. > >So far as I can currently > >see, Lojban has no direct means of expressing such a request. > >Maybe {[sumti] du ma}? Or {ma me [sumti]}? > > What would you use as [sumti]? In {le mlatu du ma}, the > speaker already has to know which cat they mean. They don't have to. A: le mlatu cliva "The cat leaves" B: ma du le mlatu "Which cat?" ["which is the cat you were referring to?"] or: ri du ma > {lo mlatu du ma} is hopelessly vague. The reason it seems to me the best way of asking "which?" is that I can think of no other reasonable interpretation to compete with it. --And.