Wiki page BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti changed
wrote:
>
> 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.
>
The last remark is an interesting point, but I
am not sure it is right. I did not *say* that I
gave the box to John, I only said "I gave to
John." Based on a variety of pragmatic factors,
you *understood* that it the box I gave. If it
was something else (not otherwise dealt with in
the context), you can accuse me of a number of
pragmatic failures, of being misleading in
general, but not of saying something false.
{zo'e} belong to that strange set of place
pluggers (like {zi'o} "this place does not exist
now") that fill places explcitly for a variety of
purposes — getting the place count to work out,
guaranteeing there is no {ce'u} in that place,
scansion, and so on — but none of them is to
refer to someone. {zo'e} says "there is no need
to mention someone here" and so is semantically
equivalent to a blank. And blanks don't refer.
Neither does "it doesn't matter who" nor "you
know who" (sentential, not nominal), the two
suggested expansions of {zo'e}.
The pragmatic understanding has here to be
separated from the semantic claim (cf. the fight
about whether {zi'o} refers to nothing --
ignoring the error avbout "nothin" of course.)