WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti > methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti

methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti


posts: 2388

 


> On Apr 2, 2005 10:52 PM, John E Clifford
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Jorge LlambĂ­as
> wrote:
> > > I think it's the other way around: zo'e is
> a
> > > way of
> > > indicating blank when leaving it blank
> would
> > > change
> > > the meaning: {broda zo'e ko'a} is not the
> same
> > > as {broda ko'a}.
> >
> > But surely not from {broda fe ko'a} (or
> whatever
> > place it is that {ko'a} occupies).
>
> {fi} in that example. Yes, {broda fi ko'a} is
> the same as {broda zo'e ko'a},
> or the same as {se te se broda ko'a}. In
> general, {zo'e} can be avoided
> if you really want to.

Good. I see that you intended your citation only
aas a bridi tail, not the whole thing.

> > > > To be sure, if what was skipped was
> > > > known to be {no da}, a good Gricean might
> > > object
> > > > to a speaker not mentioning that, if
> anything
> > > > might hang on it, but in the case of
> > > indifference
> > > > — and certainly of ignorance — {no da}
> is a
> > > > possible value to be discovered.
> > >
> > > I don't think {no da} can be skipped,
> either by
> > > blank
> > > or by {zo'e}. That amounts to skipping {na
> ku}.
> >
> > Well, that is debatable, of course; it
> depends on
> > what you mean by "skip" or whatever word you
> > use.
>
> I mean leaving the place blank or filling it
> with {zo'e}
> when the intended meaning corresponds to
> {noda}.

The point of blank is that it has NO intended
meaning. At most you can say — and even this is
often doubtful — that the intention is to not
say what, if anything, goes in the slot. I see
that what I said was somewhat less clear than it
should be. I meant that, while {broda no da} is
incompatible with {broda da (or ko'a or lo brode,
etc.)} it need not be incmpatible with {broda -
}, which may just indicate total lack of interest
about what or whether goies there. that is, the
blank may stand for {zi'o} as well as {zo'e} or
{zu'i} and probably a few other things as well,
all just about degrees of non-commital-ness.

> > Would we really say of a person who did not
> > know that he lied when he left out a
> reference
> > that proved to be {no da}?
>
> Probably not. Lying requires intent to deceive
> so it
> is hard to lie unknowingly.
>
> > Wold we even insist
> > that what he said was false?
>
> Well, yes, if what he said was false, it was
> false.
> If he says {broda} and the fact is that {naku
> broda},
> then {broda} is false.

The point again is that {broda no da} does not
entail {naku broda --}.

> > And what about the
> > cases where you don't give a damn with what
> or
> > whether the place is filled?
>
> If the argument in question is not related to
> the other arguments,
> we are simply using the wrong selbri for the
> relationship we want to
> express. (The bloating of some gismu means that
> we sometimes
> end up doing this unfortunately.)

The point here is that this move on our part is
not a mistake but a legitimate use of
nonreference.

> > > > If blank is really an abbreviation for
> > > {zo'e},
> > > > then (or {zo'e} the blank made visible)
> > > surely it
> > > > has this value (pragmatic, not semantic)
> > > "For
> > > > some reason, I am not telling you about
> > > things
> > > > that go in here" and usually this causes
> no
> > > > problems.
> > >
> > > Right. "What things" in the sense of what
> > > referents,
> > > not in the sense of what words. zo'e or
> blank
> > > don't
> > > stand for omitted words, they are the
> omision
> > > of any mention of the arguments, the
> things,
> > > that
> > > play the corresponding role in the
> > > corresponding
> > > relationship with the other (mentioned)
> things.
> > >
> > Well, I would say (indeed just did) they
> don't
> > stand for anything though they convey that I
> am
> > not going to tell you what goes there --
> whether
> > word or referent.
>
> I don't think it does that if you allow words
> without
> referents among the possible omissions.

But of course {da} has no referent and is clearly
an acceptable word there; ditto then {no da}.

> > If they stood for something
> > then I would have defeated my purpose in
> using
> > them (alrthough you would not get much more
> > information than you do now — what they
> stand
> > for, in particular). I am not clear just how
> > "omission of any mention" is different from
> > "omission of words for;" it is surely the
> words
> > that are omitted, not the things.
>
> "Words for", yes. Words that don't refer (such
> as {no da} or
> {zi'o}), no.
>
I'm sure you means something here, but it is not
clear what. {zo'e}, the official replacement for
blank, has no referent (at least in most of the
stories about what it means), it is just a
pragmatic refusal to commit, yet — even if you
don't think that {zi'o} and {zu'i} can replace
blank — it clearly can replace blank.

 



Show posts: