Re: TECH: specifity & definiteness

[Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>]

Back to normal - I disagree with jimc

+++++++>


Hear, hear!  In typical conversation one introduces a sumti referent
using "really-is" determiners like {lo} plus enough context, specified
description and restrictive  clauses to let the listener know which
referent it is.  Subsequently, one refers to the same referent using
{le} and the main selbri from the original sumti.  Example:

        mi kurji >lo< kanba             I take care of a goat (introduction)
        .i >le< kanba cu se tugle lo te vomei
                                        The goat (same one) has four legs
>+++++++++
In YOUR conversation maybe, but not mine.  For the reason
explained in my previous posting, I would say

        mi kurji le kanba

My reason is that by definition 'le kanba' means 'all of the
at least one thing I have in mind which I am describing as being
goats' - which is exactly the meaning you are looking for

Therefore, this is the unmarked case, and if I hear you say

        mi kurji lo kanba

I will understand one of the following to be the case:
1) You haven't got your goat(s) yet, or it isn't picked out of the
herd, so you don't know which it is
2) You have some reason to emphasise that it really is a goat,
and not just referred to as such
3) You are emphasising that you're not interested in which
goat it is.

This is a further example of my contention that English
distinguishes mainly definiteness, and lojban predominantly
specificity.

+++++++++>
If you pull out a {le} sumti cold, as when saying:

        le djatru fa kurji              The Lord will provide

you take a big chance with being understood; for example a Hindu might
say "Come on, sahr, you're being frightfully culture-centric to expect
me to know who your theocrat is!"  Thus I think that it's not too
productive to pick on details of how you can expect the listener
to interpret a creatively constructed {le} sumti -- you get what
you deserve!
 >+++++++++
Only with your interpretation of 'le', which I don't share.

        Colin