From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Jul 27 19:15:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 28 Jul 2001 02:15:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 50310 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2001 02:15:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Jul 2001 02:15:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Jul 2001 02:15:41 -0000 Received: from m54-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.54] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15QJOY-0002mY-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 02:59:58 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: goi Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 03:14:44 +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: <9jd3ad+pghr@eGroups.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Adam Raizen: > la and cusku di'e > > > 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.) > > Another possible way to do this, without using "ko'a", would be with > "makau". It seems that, in addition to its regular function (or maybe > this is another way to describe its regular function), "kau" indicates > a large amount of specificity. For example, in "mi djuno le du'u makau > klama le zarci", "da" is a referent of "makau" in many (probably most) > cases, but it's not what is meant by the person saying the sentence. > Thus, I think that "le broda" is basically equivalent to "makau poi > ke'a broda" (ignoring your veridicality issues, though I'm sure you > can get them back if you want). In addition, a phrase like "how I > learned Lojban" should sometimes be something like "makau poi ta'i > ke'a mi cilre fi la lojban" and not "ta'i makau mi cilre fi la > lojban", since the English sometimes refers to a method, and not a > proposition. For example "He learned Lojban how I learned Lojban" -> > "ko'a cilre fi la lojban ta'i makau poi ta'i ke'a mi cilre fi la > lojban". At least it avoids "ko'a", which most people want to look for > a previous referent for. I hadn't realized that using "ko'a" in this way might still be at all controversial. That is, I had thought that is was well established that ko'a series KOhA were not necessarily anaphoric (i.e. do not necessarily have some antecedent in the discourse). I don't understand your "makau" idea. You're welcome to run it by me again, but I feel that the logic of Q-kau is too ill-understood for us to extend its range of usage beyond those we are completely comfortable with on an intuitive level (which to my mind and those of others would be the range of usage that is analogous to the distribution of subordinate interrogative clauses in English and other natural languages). --And.