From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Jul 19 19:29:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 20 Jul 2001 02:29:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 68297 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2001 02:28:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Jul 2001 02:28:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jul 2001 02:28:38 -0000 Received: from m83-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.83] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15NPmp-0007hM-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 03:13:04 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] goi Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 03:27:47 +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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" John: > And Rosta scripsit: [...] > > This is the problem. With "ko'a goi la alis" and "la alis > > goi ko'a" if neither have explicitly been defined previously > > then you have absolutely no idea which is referential (with > > referent to be glorked from context) and which gets its > > referent from the other. > > There is a kind of hierarchy of probability-of-definition: > veridicals > non-veridicals > names > variables. This is > also a hierarchy of (increasing) semantic emptiness. Things are too complicated for this to be a usable rule of thumb. > > That is, do I, the hearer, think > > "Now who is 'la alis' likely to refer to?", or do I take > > "la alis" as being used to label the certain something that > > "ko'a" refers to? > > If we haven't heard "ko'a" before, then it's just barely possible > that it refers, but far more likely that "la .alis." refers. If that is an observation about actual Lojban usage, then yes. But otherwise, no. I hold that any specific referent can be introduced into the discourse by means of a ko'a, and that {le broda} = {ko'a noi je'u cu'i ke'a broda}. Veridical specifics, which are common in English, cannot be rendered in Lojban by a gadri and so for these ko'a is the only usage option. (In practise, of course, people prefer to use a gadri and do without veridicality.) > > > > while the textbook's "ko'a goi la alis" ought to be "ko'a > > > > no'u la alis". > > I would tend to say "la .alis. ki'a" if I didn't know which Alice > was relevant, in either case. OK, but under my proposals (viz. "X goi Y" = assign referent of X to Y") the textual confusion is eradicated, and at no cost, because your "ko'a goi la alis" can be replaced by "ko'a no'u la alis". (Note btw that I take 'incidental' clauses to be nonrestrictive but not parenthetical; i.e. as if 'incidental' is a bit of a misnomer.) --And.