Re: Cowan weighs in #1: specific, definite

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

mi pu cusku di'e

> > On this view, the "normalness" of "Which man?" is not a
> > test of specificity but of definiteness: a listener who says "Which?" to
> > an indefinite reference is legitimately asking for a referent, whereas the
> > listener who says "Which?" to a definite reference is expressing his
>  confusion.

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> But since in Lojban indefiniteness is not marked, the Lojban equivalent of
> "which?" would ask for specificity. The problem is that I can't think of
> any good Lojban equivalent of "which?".

In my opinion, the best equivalent of "Which?" referring to a indefinite
reference is a question involving "mo":

A:	mi viska le bi'u nanmu
A:	I saw a certain man.

B:	le ?mo nanmu
B:	Which man?

A:	blanu
A:	The blue one.

Here A refers to a certain man, disclaiming connection with any previously
mentioned man, so +specific -definite.  B asks for further attributes of the
man which will identify him.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.