From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Aug 11 16:52:54 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GBgo9-0005EF-Qg for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:52:53 -0700 Received: from mx5.mail.ru ([194.67.23.25]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GBgo7-0005E8-Tq for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:52:53 -0700 Received: from [84.204.201.20] (port=25654 helo=[10.15.28.10]) by mx5.mail.ru with asmtp id 1GBgo6-000EHK-00 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:52:50 +0400 Message-ID: <44DD18B5.9090506@mail.ru> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:54:29 +0400 From: Dmitry User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the articles "le" and "lo" References: <44DB3F46.3080203@freenet.de> <44DD0A2B.2080001@hypermetrics.com> In-Reply-To: <44DD0A2B.2080001@hypermetrics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 3500 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ratson@mail.ru Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Hal Fulton wrote: > Michael Graff wrote: > >> What puzzles me are these correspondences: >> definite <-> described as >> indefinite <-> really is > > That says in a nutshell something that has bothered > me subconsciously for a long time. > > I don't think the people who answered you addressed > this specifically either (unless I overlooked it). > > On top of that, I have never seen the need for the > distinction between "described as" and "really is." > > Sometimes I may use metaphors or something; but in > general, when I "describe something as" a foobar, > I basically mean it "really is" a foobar. Here is one example. (I am also beginner, and I was also bothered with le/lo distinction, so it is how I understand things. Also, forgive me unnaturalness of examples).[] #1) _Rats_ are little creatures, it helps them to inhabit almost every building. #2) Something felt loudly on a floor and _rat_ ran under the table. In #1, I am not having in mind neither specific rat, not set of rat, I am just stating some property (smallness) of thing that is really rat. The main difference to example #2 is that I have something in mind, and trying to _describe_ to listener it. (In this simple case humble author decided that description "rat" is enough). Of course, most probably that rat in #2 is really a rat (because author, probably wishes the readers to understand him). But it is not a point. PS Eww... I hope, my weak understanding, multiplied with bad knowledge of English will not confuse you more ^_^