From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Aug 10 07:14:43 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GBBJ5-0005TZ-Co for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:14:43 -0700 Received: from mout0.freenet.de ([194.97.50.131]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GBBIz-0005TQ-Gt for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:14:43 -0700 Received: from [194.97.55.147] (helo=mx4.freenet.de) by mout0.freenet.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1GBBIx-0001Q6-HZ for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:14:35 +0200 Received: from 152-202-dsl.kielnet.net ([89.27.202.152] helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mx4.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID m.graff@freenet.de) (Exim 4.62 #2) id 1GBBIx-0002UZ-0K for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:14:35 +0200 Message-ID: <44DB3F46.3080203@freenet.de> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:14:30 +0200 From: Michael Graff User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] the articles "le" and "lo" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 3489 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: m.graff@freenet.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Hello Lojban enthusiasts! ------------------------- Let me introduce myself briefly: I am a German student (please excuse my mediocre English) and am interested in mathematical logic and set theory. While reading some texts about lojban, I've been become more and more fascinated by the concepts, but: Before I'll spend a lot of work on learning this language, I want to be convinced that lojban is indeed thoughtfully designed. The concern I want to explain in this article is my confusion about the articles "lo" and "le" - very basic ingredients of lojban, which should be well defined und clearly comprehensible. I hope you can help me to unravel the fog which threatens the yet growing flame of interest and trust in lojban (what a metaphor; I warned you about my English). I have read the relevant sections in "lojbanLevel0", "Lojban for Beginners" and "The Complete Lojban Language" and the cmavo-wordlist. First I want to quote the important passages, before I'm going to explain the cause of my discomfort. 1) "lojbanLevel0" 1.a) If you wish to describe a sumti, but do not have a specific instance of the sumti in mind, you can instead refer generically to something that meets the terms of the description selbri 1.b) indefinite description as a result 1.c) lo tavla [ku] cu klama [vau] A talker goes (or) Some talkers go 2) "Lojban for Beginners" 2.a) "The logic of lo is pretty complicated, but it basically means "something which really is," which nine times out of ten is the same as English a or some. (Translating Lojban grammar into English like this is a mortal sin — damned under the name of malglico; but even so, this is the best thing to do with lo at this stage!)" 2.b) lo prenu cu klama expresses the proposition "There exists at least one person, such that that person goes." 2.c) By contrast, the cannot mean the same thing as lo. In English, the dog doesn't mean just "something which really is a dog", but more like "something which really is a dog, and which I already have in mind." (That's how "A dog came in. A dog was black" and "A dog came in. The dog was black" are different.) 3) "The Complete Lojban Language" 3.a) "le'' is quite close in meaning to English "the''. It has particular implications, however, which "the'' does not have. 3.b) The specific purpose of "le'' is twofold. First, it indicates that the speaker has one or more specific markets in mind (whether or not the listener knows which ones they are). Second, it also indicates that the speaker is merely describing the things he or she has in mind as markets, without being committed to the truth of that description. 3.c) le nanmu cu ninmu one-or-more-specific-things-which-I-describe as "men'' are women 3.d) [3.c] is not self-contradictory in Lojban, because "le nanmu'' merely means something or other which, for my present purposes, I choose to describe as a man, whether or not it really is a man. 3.e) Unlike "le'', "lo'' is nonspecific: 3.f) Unlike "le zarci'', "lo zarci'' must refer to something which actually is a market 3.g) lo nanmu cu ninmu Some man is a woman. Some men are women. must be false in Lojban, given that there are no objects in the real world which are both men and women. 3.h) In general, "lo'' refers to whatever individuals meet its description. 4) explanations of the cmavo-wordlist 4.a) le LE the described non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as ... 4.b) lo LE the really is veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are) ... 5) The Lojban-English-Tranlater ( http://www.lojban.org/jboski/ ) translates "le" as "the" and "lo" as "any / some". Now I want to tell you how I understand these articles in my own words: * "le P" means: I have one object or several objects in my mind (an/some object(s) of current observation, an accurate memory, an imagination or an idea) which I try to describe for you. Result of my effort: x1 of P describes it / them fairly well, but I might be mistaken. More precisely: There are x_1, x_2, ..., x_i so that P x_1, ..., x_i is true AND x1 is the something which I have in my mind and which I want to explain to you AND the bridi in which the sumti "le P" is used is true (or should be true in order to please me, if the bridi is an command) if x_1 is used as the sumti at the denoted place; but I might be wrong (because I'm stupid or deluded). * "lo P" means: There exists such objects x_1, x_2, ... , x_i so that the predicate P x_1, x_2, ..., x_i is true AND the bridi in which the sumti "lo P" is used is true (or should be true in order to..., if the bridi is an command) if x_1 is used as the sumti at the denoted place. Example: "lo prenu cu pensi" means that there are x_1, x_2 so that x1 is a person who thinks/considers/cogitates/reasons/is pensive about/reflects upon subject/concept x2 (which is the only certain truth according to Descartes). What puzzles me are these correspondences: definite <-> described as indefinite <-> really is I know that texts cannot be translated word for word. For example there is no single German word which matches the English noun "gasp", which means a quite specifically caused breath (vice versa-example: the German word "Zeitgeist"). Even words which seem to be synonymous often turn out to bear slightly different meanings (under certain circumstances). So I am aware that these correspondences are no equalities, but even the pretended similarities are odd for me. In 1.b, 1.c, 3.e and 2.a ("nine times out of ten is the same as English a or some") the authors assert that the meanings of "lo" and of "a", "some" are very close. Example 3.c indicates that "le" is used for describing the appearence and the impression of something; the communicating persons perhaps commonly share(d) the sight of the described something or the involved thoughts, which might however deceive them. On the contrary "lo" is used if the speaker is sure that the something "meet[s] its description"; therefore "lo" transports not less information than "le", that is it's not less specific. By the way it's an interesting question how the speaker can be absolutely sure that the something "meet[s] its description". I don't associate "a" or "the" with unequal degrees of certainty. The only difference is that "the" refers back to something which was mentioned or observed before. The use of "a" does not implicate that I'm sure that the communicated something really meets its description. Conclusion: Either the pretended similarities are exaggerated or I've missed something. I'll be glad if somebody helps me and clarifies this matter for a lojban newbie who is eager to learn. Thanks in advance. Michael PS) My answers might be quite irregular because I'll be working on my diploma in mathematics. For the curios ones: I shall prove that a certain theorem cannot be derived from the established axioms of set theory, presumed that these axioms are not contradictory - really mind-boggling und wondrous stuff.