Re: LE and VOI

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

Jorge:
> >What I really want to say is something like {le co`e cu
> >mlatu gi`e xekri} or {le broda cu mlatu gi`e xekri} - I
> >want to refer to something without giving a description of
> >it.
>
> {le co'e} works great. I think that {ko'a} means {le co'e}
> when it is not goied.

The trouble with both of these is that they might induce the
listener to look around for an antecedent. [But see below.]

> >Anyway, here's an example of a specific veridical "indefinite":
> >"I will show John a book". I want this claim to be false if I will
> >not show John _War & Peace_, even if I do show him _Madame
> >Bovary_. That is, I want "a book" to refer to W&.teoP, but I don't
> >want to bother saying this (perhaps it's not relevant to do so).
>
> That is not the most normal interpretation for that sentence in
> English, though. I think I kind of get an idea of what you mean,
> but then for me the intentionality of "will" gets in the way. I tend
> to understand your sentence as "there is a book such that
> I intend to show it to John", then it is false if you show him
> a different one from the one you intended. But if "will" is
> only working as a future marker, then I don't see how your
> truth conditions can work for that sentence. If you change
> it to past tense: "I showed John a book", I can't get that
> sentence to be false if you didn't show him the book that
> you have in mind but another one: to your audience the
> sentence is true even if you are lying to yourself in your
> own mind.

All I can do is try to persuade you that you have overlooked
the true facts...

Consider "There's going to be a brilliant film on the telly
tomorrow". That can be interpreted nonspecifically, e.g. if
I know that the network always schedules brillliant films
for Fridays. Or it can be interpreted specifically, e.g. if
I know that Barry Lyndon is going to be shown. If the hearer
understands it as specific, they may ask "Which one?", but
would not ask such a question if they assume a nonspecific
interpretation.

> >The only sure way of saying this that I know of is to use:
> >"le meaningless-brivla cu ge ba se jarco mi la djon gi cukta".
>
> Yes, that's how it should be, since you're really making the two
> claims about your referent. I think that
>                     ko'a ge ba se jarco mi la djon gi cukta
> works for that.

Perhaps {ba`e ko`a} is kinder on the hearer, though it's a bit
cumbersome. Also, since for nonsecifics we have the triplet

    lo mlatu cu xekri
    lo xekri cu mlatu
    da ge xekri gi mlatu

it would be nice to have a counterpart of the first two (i.e.
a gadri version) for specific indefinites/veridicals.

--And