Wiki page BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti changed
pc:
> > do punji le tanxe ma
> > Where did you put the box?
> >
> > mi dunda zo'e la djan
> > mi dunda fi la djan
> > I gave to John.
> >
> > In this last one, zo'e can still refer to the
> > box,
>
> Actually, no; {zo'e} doesn't refer to anything
> (does the place gap in {mi dunda fi la djan}
> refer to the box?) {zo'e} says there is no need
> to specify what fills this place, but saying that
> cleatly does not say what is filling this place.
I'm not sure if you are opposing that {mi dunda zo'e la djan}
can mean that I gave it to John, or just the way of
explaining it.
If the former, then we simply understand zo'e differently,
because as I understand it Lojban does allow you to use zo'e
when the value meant is obvious from context (as in this case),
to make a claim about that and just that value.
If the latter, then I don't think it matters how we think
of it: either {zo'e} refers to the obvious value for the
context (in this case the box), or it indicates that the
claim being made is about the obvious value. In other words,
if I didn't give the box to John, {mi dunda fi la djan}
is as false in this context as {mi dunda le tanxe la djan}
even if I did give John something else.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail