Re: [lojban] The Wizard of Oz

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

  Actually, Cowardly Lion is often  treated as his name inasmuch as, being a lion, he didn't properly have one (note, for example, that it is always capitalized in the books).  In Enchanted Island of Oz, he was briefly called "Cowy" but, thankfully, that nickname didn't stick.  (That being said, I agree that "le" is better than "la" in this case.)

         --gejyspa

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:05 AM, <vpbroman@gmail.com> wrote:

And,

As I read it, xorlo "le" and "la" are pretty much the same as in CLL, except for default quantification.
In CLL around 6.2.6 I understand that a name (a cmene or a la sumti) is an arbitrary identifier, attached to something by the act of naming, instead of by reference to dictionary meanings and observation.

`` The last descriptor of this section is “la”, which indicates that the selbri which follows it has been dissociated from its normal meaning and is being used as a name. Like “le” descriptions, “la” descriptions are implicitly restricted to those I have in mind. ''

In the original translation of "the Cowardly Lion" as "la tolvirnu cinfo", for example, this identification is used because the critter is cowardly and he is a lion, it's not some kind of CB handle.
None of the "la" expressions I'm concerned about ever get used with a vocative.
They are descriptive phrases that seem to me to be very standard cases for using "le".
We should write "le xamgu termakfyfetsi", "le smani", "le rijno cutci", etc.

Is there a variety of lojban where this is not the case?

la bremenli

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 2:20:30 AM UTC-8, And Rosta wrote:

On 26 Nov 2017 16:36, <vpbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

One substantive global kind of change was made.
Among all the uses of "la", there were many cases where it is followed by a verb phrase, and where the _expression_ is not at all a name, but a description, for example "la tolvirnu cinfo".
All such non-names got "la" replaced with "le".

That looks a deleterious change, unless post-xorlo "le" has been completely redefined from what it formerly was. The original "la" captures properly the English, whereas semitraditional "le" does not at all. (By "semitraditional" I mean to exclude the habitual solecistic misuse that prevailed in early Lojban writing, where "le" was used as the default gadri, with sillinesses such as "le nu".)

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.