WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti

On Apr 2, 2005 10:52 PM, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think it's the other way around: zo'e is a
> > way of
> > indicating blank when leaving it blank would
> > change
> > the meaning: {broda zo'e ko'a} is not the same
> > as {broda ko'a}.
>
> But surely not from {broda fe ko'a} (or whatever
> place it is that {ko'a} occupies).

{fi} in that example. Yes, {broda fi ko'a} is the same as {broda zo'e ko'a},
or the same as {se te se broda ko'a}. In general, {zo'e} can be avoided
if you really want to.

> > > To be sure, if what was skipped was
> > > known to be {no da}, a good Gricean might
> > object
> > > to a speaker not mentioning that, if anything
> > > might hang on it, but in the case of
> > indifference
> > > — and certainly of ignorance — {no da} is a
> > > possible value to be discovered.
> >
> > I don't think {no da} can be skipped, either by
> > blank
> > or by {zo'e}. That amounts to skipping {na ku}.
>
> Well, that is debatable, of course; it depends on
> what you mean by "skip" or whatever word you
> use.

I mean leaving the place blank or filling it with {zo'e}
when the intended meaning corresponds to {noda}.

> Would we really say of a person who did not
> know that he lied when he left out a reference
> that proved to be {no da}?

Probably not. Lying requires intent to deceive so it
is hard to lie unknowingly.

> Wold we even insist
> that what he said was false?

Well, yes, if what he said was false, it was false.
If he says {broda} and the fact is that {naku broda},
then {broda} is false.

> And what about the
> cases where you don't give a damn with what or
> whether the place is filled?

If the argument in question is not related to the other arguments,
we are simply using the wrong selbri for the relationship we want to
express. (The bloating of some gismu means that we sometimes
end up doing this unfortunately.)

> > > If blank is really an abbreviation for
> > {zo'e},
> > > then (or {zo'e} the blank made visible)
> > surely it
> > > has this value (pragmatic, not semantic)
> > "For
> > > some reason, I am not telling you about
> > things
> > > that go in here" and usually this causes no
> > > problems.
> >
> > Right. "What things" in the sense of what
> > referents,
> > not in the sense of what words. zo'e or blank
> > don't
> > stand for omitted words, they are the omision
> > of any mention of the arguments, the things,
> > that
> > play the corresponding role in the
> > corresponding
> > relationship with the other (mentioned) things.
> >
> Well, I would say (indeed just did) they don't
> stand for anything though they convey that I am
> not going to tell you what goes there — whether
> word or referent.

I don't think it does that if you allow words without
referents among the possible omissions.

> If they stood for something
> then I would have defeated my purpose in using
> them (alrthough you would not get much more
> information than you do now — what they stand
> for, in particular). I am not clear just how
> "omission of any mention" is different from
> "omission of words for;" it is surely the words
> that are omitted, not the things.

"Words for", yes. Words that don't refer (such as {no da} or
{zi'o}), no.

mu'o mi'e xorxes