[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
> > What we're discussing here is degrees of definite knowledge about the > referenced object on the part of the speaker and the listener. > > "te": speaker knows, listener knows > "da": speaker knows, listener doesn't know > "ki": speaker doesn't know, listener doesn't know > "sao": speaker knows, listener presumably knows > "cai": ? speaker knows and names, listener might know I see them more as specification, uniqueness, and previous introduction instead of knowing. Thus, it would look like this: "te": previously introduced; specification irrelevant, uniqueness irrelevant. "ki": unspecified; not unique. "da": specified; not unique. "sao": unique (and specified, since it is unique). The distinction between "ki" and "da" is specification because it's possible that the speaker doesn't actually know the identity of the thing yet, but he knows it is a specific one. "A bird pooped on me yesterday, but I never saw it." "A car ran over me and knocked me out, so I never saw what kind it was." the only requirement is that some entity out there, fictional or real, is assigned this identity. With "ki", no assignments are made by anyone: "I was pooped on by birds yesterday" "I was car-hit and knocked unconcious." > Looked at this way, "te", "da", and "ki" seem to form a continuum. In > English we sometimes replace the article with 'this' when we have > the "da" meaning in mind: 'I'm going to marry this Swede.' It does > seem a useful distinction. > > I don't know about "sao", though. To me it doesn't seem so important > whether the known thing is known because I just identified it or > because it's assumed as already identified through common experience. > If this distinction is made, then it seems that all the others in > Garrett's initial list ought to be made as well. The meaning of "sao" is a useful distinction. You can use it this way. Say you own one car and 50 books. Then, when you are saying things are red, with singular/plural unexpressed: 1. is-red car sao mine = "my car is red." (my only car) 2. is-red car da mine = "a car of mine is red." (doesn't exclude more than one car, but in reality, I only have one). 3. is-red book sao mine = "my book/s are red." (all of them) 4. is-red book da mine = "a book of mine is red"/"books of mine are red". (a subset of them are red) In English, the possessive actually has the meaning of "sao", and you have to create longer phrases to get the meaning of "da". > > You don't mean a typical, or representative Swede here, > > do you? You could mean, say, that you're going to marry a Swede to > > get > > Swedish citizenship, say, and you don't need a typical one, you > > need -any- one. > > I don't follow, Rex. Does one of Garrett's articles convey > typicalness? And what is the distinction? none of them convey typicalness. > --Krawn > -- Garrett Jones http://www.alkaline.org