Wiki page BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti changed
wrote:
>
> pc:
> > 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."
>
> We do understand {zo'e} differently, then.
> In English, you can't drop the "it" to say
> "I gave it to John". In Lojban, you can
> say {mi pu dunda zo'e la djan} or
> {mi pu dunda fi la djan} to mean the same
> thing, i.e. that I gave *it* (i.e. the obvious
> thing) 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.
>
> I'm not talking about accusations of saying
> something
> false. You could also use {le tanxe} to refer
> to
> something other than the box and then claim you
> were
> not saying something false. All I'm saying is
> that
> {mi dunda fi la djan}, in that context, and
> when there
> are no misunderstandings, is true iff I gave
> the box
> to John, not if I gave something else to John.
> Just
> as {mi dunda le tanxe la djan}.
>
> If there are misunderstandings, such as the
> participants
> disagreeing about what the referents of {zo'e},
> {le tanxe},
> {la djan}, (even {mi} maybe) are, then that's a
> different
> matter.
>
> Pragmatic failures aside, I find that {zo'e}
> has a referent
> just like {le tanxe} does.
>
> > {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}.
>
> Well, if zo'e, like zi'o, reduces the number
> of places of {dunda} by one, then that's
> another
> valid way of seeing it. But in that case, what
> the reduced relationship is will be context
> dependent.
> {dunda be zo'e} in the given context means
> "x1 gives-the-box-we're-talking-about to x2".
> Then the claim
> is that that two-place relationship holds of
> (mi, la djan).
> I don't have a problem with that view. The
> claim will
> not be satisfied by my giving something else to
> John,
> that would require a different relationship.
I don't think that {zo'e} works like {zi'o},
that is change the relationship. But I also
don't think that {zo'e} refers to anything; it is
saying in effect "I won't bother saying what" --
though why I don't leave it blank at that point I
am not sure (well, it isn't a real case so there
isn't a real reason, but there are a variety of
possibilities). Did the person saying {mi dunda
fi la djan} when he gave something other than the
box to John in a context where the box is the
expected donation say something false. I would
say "No," provided he did give something; it
might not even be irrelevant or misleading. John
is an Al Qaida agent doing business as a
solicitor for an Islamic charity. The government
maintains that the charity is a front and also
knows that someone gave John a box of C4. So I
get quizzed and, because I know that giving to
the "charity" is enough and wanting to get on
with it I say that I gave to John, thinking that
they are on the usual charity dragnet, not
knowing about the box. There is a pragmatic
failure here, but it is not even the speaker's --
or not entirely — the two conversants are merely
on different pages and have not yet consolidated.
But I certainly did not say anything false --
nor did I refer to whatever it was I did give.
> > 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.)
>
> I can see it either way, {zo'e} has a context
> dependent
> referent, like {ta}, or {zo'e} changes the
> relationship
> to a different one, like {zi'o}. The effect is
> the same
> as far as I can tell.
>
Of course there is also the problem that {zo'e}
doesn't mean "the obvious thing," it also means
"it doesn't matter what" — which is not a
referring expression (either — but that is the
point of contention). "there's no need to
mention anything" seems to be the most natural
meaning for {zo'e} that covers both. It falls
short of {zi'o} which runs to "there is no need
to even consider this place" (or even "there is
a need not to consider this place"), but goes a
bit further than {su'o da} along that path
(pragmatic restrictions again: {su'o da} is
illegitmate if you know what it is, and, if not,
it expects that you will say something more about
it sometime, whereas the point of {zo'e} is
exactly that you won't).