From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Aug 01 10:34:19 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOyWB-0002Zs-AN for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:34:19 -0700 Received: from mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.1]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOyW7-0002Zc-He for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:34:19 -0700 X-Trace: 64378509/mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com/F2S/$F2S-NILDRAM-ACCEPTED/f2s-temporary-group/212.139.135.3 X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 212.139.135.3 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: mark@antelope.nildram.co.uk X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAHjmkkjUi4cD/2dsb2JhbACTGg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,294,1215385200"; d="scan'208";a="64378509" X-IP-Direction: IN Received: from mk-nildram-webmail-1.uk.tiscali.com (HELO UebiMiau) ([212.139.135.3]) by smtp.f2s.tiscali.co.uk with SMTP; 01 Aug 2008 18:34:05 +0100 Received: from client 62.3.233.118 for UebiMiau2.7 (webmail client); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:34:05 +0100 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:34:05 +0100 From: "Mark" X-Webmail-User: 376e65522c373672 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Lo and le...(oh*sigh*) X-Priority: 3 X-Original-IP: 62.3.233.118 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MSMail-Priority: Medium Importance: Medium Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / Message-Id: X-archive-position: 762 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mark@antelope.nildram.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Ok, so let me check my understanding is right here. Lojban's not quite as strict as I thought it was. :) "lo" means a/any/some/all of a thing, which is specified in a more objective fashion, although not an absolutely objective one. Thus, I could describe the Supermodel Of The Week as "lo melbi ninmu" even though beauty isn't objective, and even if I personally _don't_ consider her beautiful, because that's a generally accepted description for her. "le" means "one particular thing which I'm thinking of, and which is specified in a subjective fashion". (It must necessarily be specified in a subjective fashion because by using le at all I'm asking you to figure out which particular one I'm specifying, if I wanted to be completely specific I'd have to use a relative clause I guess.) So if I am, say, the one person on earth who finds Nora Random to be beautiful, I can refer to her as "le melbi ninmu" if I want to. However, if I refer to the Supermodel Of The Week as "le melbi ninmu", it doesn't necessarily mean I find her attractive, because I could just be using the objective description in le, which I am not debarred from doing. So if I meet you, and you are out walking your dog, but I also know that you have another dog who is at home in your yard; nonetheless, if I say "le do gerku", you may take it to mean the dog you are walking. The same words could refer to the dog back in your yard, but "le" necessarily asks for your common sense in interpreting it. Is this about right? Mark ________________________________________________ Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2