From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Aug 01 10:47:02 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOyiT-0003BJ-F2 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:47:02 -0700 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.241]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOyiQ-0003B8-KU for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:47:01 -0700 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so1005831rvf.46 for ; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:46:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=WhBvwJ1AuHJgmr3a31IR+G0HBBH9mgeoLLOv3GzVzEU=; b=WUpBJcnZiIfDKgHjM4rxQ6ifOwAusX4mBZDWZBCxlB/gk9iDpXH6lxeGwi5o5NguTV eX4kzUL5z+VL3VPF6DeHCboXA4VWKj68gZQ5R5l7MQLfwJiw95L7AaUJrRhvFSkbHSgR q8U7EBhFFWIv6BnTG2rAWfAoHEXSp+f1Oc1r0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=U13UTd8B1H+jzMWor9C6ap1ycDHC7dyFNIifB5wZ3Qg9++u39Peg5raaUmtWn/tmYY jNzV4UJYc2bCiAw6kZd2O+hh7CcbJ+bFf5hEhQ8MFJIKKPYeFqV9Qri+gLZ7c48PKwJa MXPnbzp40sSvKunah+N2Ioek3gMp2iPu7ycJU= Received: by 10.141.5.17 with SMTP id h17mr6100385rvi.8.1217612817583; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.153.20 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:46:57 -0400 From: "Matt Arnold" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Lo and le...(oh*sigh*) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 763 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Mark wrote: > 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 Basically, yes. Language always relies on the common sense of the listener to fill in blanks. Not just the word "le", but all language. We have a proverb among Lojban enthusiasts: "Infinite precision requires infinite verbosity." -Eppcott