Wiki page BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti changed
wrote:
>
> pc:
> > 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.
>
> Yes. I remind you of the context: Person A asks
> {do punji le tanxe ma} "where did you put the
> box?"
> Person B responds {mi dunda fi la djan}, i.e.
> "I gave (it) to John".
>
> > I would
> > say "No," provided he did give something; it
> > might not even be irrelevant or misleading.
>
> In this case, it would be.
>
> > 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.
>
> Totally different context.
Not obviously; just filling in more details.
>
> > "there's no need to
> > mention anything" seems to be the most
> natural
> > meaning for {zo'e} that covers both.
>
> There is no need to mention it because we are
> both
> perfectly clear on what we are discussing. The
> relationship {dunda} is claimed to hold among
> three
> things: myself, the box and John.
Yes, we are clear — well, you are anyway — but
that doesn't mean the speaker of {mi dunda fi la
djan} verbally made a reference to the box and so
asserted that the relation holds. Pragmatics
ain't s.emantics