WikiDiscuss

John Cowan wrote:
> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
> > With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be
> > used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is
> > presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there
> > is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say
> > "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?"
>
> "poi" serves as a sortal; ta poi mrenu = that (a man) vs. ta poi nazbi
> = that (the man's nose).

But that assumes that both the man and the nose are referents of
{ta}, and then the poi clause selects one of them.

{ta noi nanmu} and {ta noi nazbi} would mean "that, which as you
can see is a man" and "that, which as you can see is a nose".
In this case, {ta} has just the intended referent from the start.
The non-restrictive information might be helpful for the listener
for purposes of identification, but it is not used by the speaker
to select certain referent from a number of referents.

Both views are possible, it all depends on how we imagine that
{ta} gets its referents. If it's purely a matter of the speaker's
intentions (and Lojban, at least in theory, is very speaker-centric
in this respect) then {poi} doesn't really make much sense, because
the speaker won't have both the man and the nose in mind as referents
of {ta} from which to select. If the referents of {ta} are more of
a negotiation between speaker and listener, then yes, {poi} makes
sense, as in that case {ta} would be more of a {lo pointed-at} than
a {le pointed-at}.

> > I think {voi} should be non-restrictive, because the speaker already has
> > just the referents that they have in mind in mind. Further restriction
> > seems unnecessary.
>
> That's a good point abstractly, but can you provide a motivating example?

Not really, I don't really see {voi} as useful in normal usage,
I was thinking more in terms of its use in the definition of {le}.

If we think of {zo'e} as a generalized {ta}, i.e. as something that
gets its referent from context but without the actual physical
pointing (since often it is not even physically pointable) then
as I argue above {zo'e noi ...} is the way to give additional verbal
information about it. {poi} would not be quite right, because the
speaker does not have other things in mind which need restriction.
So, if we define {le broda} as I propose as {zo'e noi mi skicu ...},
and if we want to use {voi} to define {le}, then it makes sense
to define {voi} as a non-restrictive clause marker. Then
{le broda} = {zo'e voi ke'a broda}, parallel to {lo broda}
= {zo'e noi ke'a broda}.

If we on the other hand don't use this generalized {ta} to define
{le}, but rather define {ro le broda} as {ro da poi mi skicu ...},
then it makes sense to define {voi} as restrictive. Then
{ro le broda} = {ro da voi ke'a broda}, parallel to
{su'o lo broda} = {su'o da poi ke'a broda}.

I don't really think {voi} will get used much either way, but
who knows?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail