Re: LE and VOI

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> but I don't see any need to stress that we really are talking
> about a real cat, since that will be the default assumption.
> Context has to clearly indicate otherwise for {le mlatu} to
> refer to something that is not a cat.

I used to agree with that, but then came across a footnote in
McCawley where he gives "the man standing over there drinking
a martini is having an affair" said at a party by someone trying
to point the man out to someone else. The speaker does not wish
to assert that the man really is drinking a martini; if the man is
not actually drinking a martini, but something else instead
that just looks like martini, the speaker does not want the
overall sentence to be false. Rather the "standing over there
drinking a martini" bit is just used to guide the addressee in
assigning reference.

So the following combos are useful:

1 nonspecific, veridical
2 specific, veridical, "indefinite" (= referent not (necessarily)
   identifiable by addressee)
3 specific, nonveridical, "definite" (= referent not (necessarily)
   identifiable by addressee)

Function 1 is performed by {lo}. Functions 2 & 3 are both
performed by {le}. Both 2 & 3 are useful, & it wd be nice to
think of an easy way to distinguish them.

--And