From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Jul 10 16:32:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8133 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 23:32:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 23:32:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.117) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 23:32:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 47625 invoked by uid 0); 10 Jul 2000 23:32:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20000710233221.47624.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.154.98 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:32:21 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.154.98] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: RE: "which?" (was: RE: [lojban] centripetality: subset vs component Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:32:21 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e > > It is not {mo} that makes the difference. It is the article. > >Maybe the answer should just be {blabi}, then? The wanted answer is exactly the same sentence with {mo} replaced by an informative brivla. Of course it is possible to rephrase the answer or use ellipsis, but the information provided should at least cover what was asked. {do viska le mo mlatu} requires an answer of the type {mi viska le blabi mlatu}, and {le blabi mlatu} has to be identificatory. Other valid answers to that question should retain this property. >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] If B did not identify the cat from A's initial claim, the best request for clarification is {le ki'a mlatu}. A's claim assumes that {le mlatu} is enough to identify the cat. >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. Then he is not asking "which?". Of course he may want to and can ask for elaboration. > > 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}. It wouldn't be silly, but it would have a different meaning. A: mi pu viska le mlatu vi le panka "I saw the cat in the park." B: i le mo mlatu [pu se viska do vi le panka] "Which cat?" A: i le blabi mlatu "The white cat." B could have used {ki'a} in this case. I think {le mo mlatu} is also valid here, but it has to be taken as starting a different reference than the one used by A first, which failed. A's answer, on the other hand, is the same as B's reference, and hopefully this time it succeeds. > > 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.). Ok, given that the sentence as a whole can't be evaluated until we have a value for {mo}. But still {le mo mlatu} is more forceful, because in {le mlatu cu mo} the sumti is already complete. I don't know whether the rule should be that complete sumti should not be evaluated until the whole sentence is ready for evaluation. It seems more natural to allow partial evaluations. >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". Yes, I agree. But it is more ambiguous. B might not be certain whether A has identified the referent or is just making reference to his reference. Both {le ki'a mlatu} and {le mo mlatu} are safer bets for A. > > 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. I'm just using the definition of a question in Lojban. The speaker asks the listener to fill the blank so as to make a true statement. To make a true statement with {le} requires successful identification. >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? Nothing, but they are not {le} statements. A: lo steci mlatu cu cliva B: lo steci ke mo mlatu cu cliva A: lo steci ke blabi mlatu cu cliva A is not making a specific reference there. > > {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. Yes. But if {mo} is outside the scope of {le}, then it is at least reasonable to expect the questioner to have already make that one identification, isn't it? >(b) {le broda}'s referent must be identified for the truth to >be evaluated, but it needn't be identified by the questioner. Maybe you're right, but I don't think we have debated this before. My feeling is that there would at least be a strong presumption that the speaker has already identified a {le broda} sumti in a question. Otherwise asking any kind of question becomes a pain if the listener needs not to worry about any identifications that the questioner wants to make. > > 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 Maybe, but I think in the end this makes things harder for the speaker. If he should not be expected to know which cat when asking about {le mlatu}, how does he do when he does want to ask about a specific cat? co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com