Re: copy of Linguist List article and reply

[And Rosta <cbmvax!uunet!UCL.AC.UK!ucleaar>]

Lojbab wrote:
> Each of your numbered examples are expressed in Lojban using "mass
> nouns" since Lojban can express any 'noun' as a mass noun.  Analogizing
> back to an understandable English example you can get the sample
> sentence "John spilled [SOME] WATER from ITS basin", where I believe the
> optional quantifier "some" may indicate specificity, but need not force
> it.  Without the quantifier, the mass noun seems clearly non-specific
> (although the "its" clearly points back to the non-specific portion
> being described).  Yes, there is some specific water associated with any
> given basin, but there is no indication in the sample sentence that a
> specific basin is being referred to, hence the water itself is generic.
> With the quantifier, the reference could still be non-specific, except
> that it is selecting a non-specific "some" portion out of the mass of
> water.

Because the referent of _spilled_ is specific, I can't get _(some) water_
as nonspecific (ignoring here the reading on which referent of _spilled_
is generic, as in "John used to spill water"). A better example would
be:
    John will spill (some) water.
This can be specific or nonspecific.

> >   (2) you know THESE MORAL COMMANDOS who want us to think THEIR way and
> >   want to change what we can hear and see and think in this country are
> >   dangerous.  . .
>
> Returning to the water analogy, and repeating:
>
> "John spilled [SOME] WATER from ITS basin"
>
> There is no necessity in the water example that the speaker have a
> specific basin in mind.  The basin is restricted by association with
> some water that spilled from it (and with John who spilled it), and the
> water is restricted by association with a basin spilled from (and with
> John).

re referents of _commandos_ and _basin_:
I think here we have not the specific/nonspecific distinction but the
referential/attributive distinction, about which I have very few ideas.
I can't remember which is referential & which is attributive, but I'll
illustrate the difference:
   Arnold has fled the scene of the crime.
   Sophy's abductor has fled the scene of the crime.
The referent of the subject of _has_ is in both cases specific (I reckon),
but in the second case (the problematic one) all the speaker knows about
the referent is that they abducted Sophy, so it means "Whoever abducted
Sophy".

Since we're on the subject, I'll put another challenge to Lojbab & Co.
Translate the following.
1  Man is mortal.
   [from this we get the syllogism
    Socrates is a man.
    Therefore Socrates is mortal.]
2  Man is immortal.
    [from this we DO NOT get:
     Socrates is immortal.]
3  The witchcraft trial lasted for 5 days. [generic]
   [W was a witchcraft trial.
    Therefore W lasted for 5 days. - Yes.]
4  The witchcraft trial lasted for 5 centuries (and was then abolished).
   [W was a witchcraft trial.
    Therefore W lasted for 5 centuries. - No.]
5  Sophy jogged for an hour each day. [habitual]
6  Sophy jogged for five years (but then gave up).
7  Sophy jogged for an hour each day for five years.

---
And