From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Jul 14 19:38:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25633 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2000 02:38:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jul 2000 02:38:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Jul 2000 02:38:05 -0000 Received: from m3-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com ([62.252.12.3] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 13DHgt-0004NZ-00 for lojban@egroups.com; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 03:28:32 +0100 To: Subject: RE: "which?" (was: RE: [lojban] centripetality: subset vs component Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 03:38:01 +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: <20000710233221.47624.qmail@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > 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. I have realized that this is your claim, but I still don't see that it 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}. No, this is intended as a question about the type of cat. > A's claim assumes that {le mlatu} is enough to identify > the cat. It doesn't assume this. Specificity is not the same as identifiability, at least not for the hearer. > > >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. That's right. The point of this dialogue was to show that {le mo broda} needn't be asking a which-question. > > > > 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." "I saw a certain 'cat' in the park." > B: i le mo mlatu [pu se viska do vi le panka] > "Which cat?" "a certain 'what?-type cat'?" > A: i le blabi mlatu > "The white cat." "a certain '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. Okay, I'll discuss this {le ki'a} suggestion now. Here are two problems with it. First: A: le nanmu ............ le nanmu B: le ki'a nanmu B is saying that {le} provokes confusion. What sort of confusion? Presumably, about what the referent is. HOWEVER, it could simply be confusion about whether the two {le nanmu} sumti share the same referent. In this case, all B is saying "is this le ba'e, or not?", and B is not saying "give me sufficient information to identify the referent". Second: I may be wrong, but I don't think {le ki'a kau} can be assumed to work as an indirect question. Yet we do want to be able to say "He told me which book he was reading". A fully satisfactory solution for which-questions will generalize to indirect question contexts. > > > 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. John has answered this: % "A certain" in English is a way of making +specific % -definite sumti: I know what cat is meant (+specific), but % you don't (-definite). In Lojban "le bi'unai mlatu". > > > {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. Maybe it would be more helpful to think of things this way: A; le broda goi ko'a cu brode B: ko'a mo Whatever question B is trying to ask, it remains the case that ko'a has a guaranteed referent, even if B cannot identify ko'a. I contend that B could equally well have said "le broda cu mo", where "le broda" would have a referent guaranteed either (a) by B being able to identify it, or (b) by it being coreferential with the {le broda} in A's utterance. > > > > 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? This is a hypothetical problem for {ma du le mlatu} but not {ri du ma}. But anyway, {ma du le mlatu} is asking about a specific cat, namely the one that A was talking about. Actually, no. I'm wrong and I should go to bed now. If B wants to say or talk about "the cat(s) A was referring to" then this is {ro lo mlatu poi fe[?] ke'a tavla fa do} or {ro lo mlatu poi di'e valsi ke'a}. If B instead uses {le mlatu}, then this could refer to the same cat as A was talking about, even if B can identify it by no unique property other than the property of being talked about by A, but there is no guarantee of this coreference; A would have to glork it from context. {ri du ma} works okay though. Hopefully I'll be thinking more clearly when I've caught up on sleep deficit. --And.