Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 06:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <aeb4566b-a673-43cc-9539-11fe29679dc2@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDWjaA5SnwWcjRUZKP+q0Z4vohQ-njmwwSu2p-VEQboFyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e7d449eb-3494-4ffa-a469-3145135f6f96@googlegroups.com>
 <7543006.QVFjYzoatX@caracal> <933d80e7-2502-4e29-a9c2-2d44fad740f2@googlegroups.com>
 <CAOQ8VDWjaA5SnwWcjRUZKP+q0Z4vohQ-njmwwSu2p-VEQboFyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Please, the best explanation of {le} vs. {lo}
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_643_31489472.1371820535596"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_643_31489472.1371820535596
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


On Friday, June 21, 2013 5:11:53 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
>
> On 21 June 2013 08:49, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 21, 2013 4:01:54 PM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote:
>>
>>> When talking about a species, meaning all or typical members of the 
>>> species, 
>>> use "lo": 
>>> lo guakmaio be la blanu joi pelxu cu xabju lo ketco solni'atutra 
>>> The blue-and-gold macaw lives in tropical South America. 
>>> It is also correct to use "lo'e". 
>>>
>>
>> And again I can't see why can't we use {le} or {le'e}. You are talking 
>> about macaw living in America so you have them in mind although you might 
>> no necessarily saw them.
>>  
>>
>
> Yes, you have it in mind, but you need to ask yourself, "Am I thinking 
> about particular instances of {guakmaio}?" The answer in this case is no. 
> You're thinking about the archetypal macaw, which itself doesn't really 
> even exist. 
>
> The difference between {le} and {lo} is essentially specificity. The 
> former requires the speaker to have *particular instances of the described 
> selbri* in mind, whereas the latter makes no such promise. {lo} is agnostic 
> about specificity, which contributes to it being the never-wrong article 
> that can be used anywhere.
>
>
I guess in 99% of cases {le} denotes real objects endured in time and space.
It's a pity we don't have anti-{le} to explicitly refer to non-specific 
objects. Do we?


As for veridicality, enough UD messiness can permit either to be 
> nonveridical. I don't oppose someone being able to refer to the monopoly 
> car piece with {lo karce} (although I may have in the past) as the piece 
> satisfies some salient property of true karce, i.e. the piece looks like a 
> (very small) car, despite not being automotive. Part of the rationale 
> behind that is that in the "monopoly UD", the pieces do actually satisfy 
> those properties.
>
> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o
>

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


------=_Part_643_31489472.1371820535596
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Friday, June 21, 2013 5:11:53 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:<blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr">On 21 June 2013 08:49, la=
 arxokuna <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" g=
df-obfuscated-mailto=3D"wfXqWaWpMQIJ">gleki.is...@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br><br>On Friday, June 21, 2013 4:01:5=
4 PM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote:</div><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex">

When talking about a species, meaning all or typical members of the species=
,=20
<br>use "lo":
<br>lo guakmaio be la blanu joi pelxu cu xabju lo ketco solni'atutra
<br>The blue-and-gold macaw lives in tropical South America.
<br>It is also correct to use "lo'e".
<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>And again I can't see why can't =
we use {le} or {le'e}. You are talking about macaw living in America so you=
 have them in mind although you might no necessarily saw them.</div>

<div><div><div>&nbsp;</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes=
, you have it in mind, but you need to ask yourself, "Am I thinking about p=
articular instances of {guakmaio}?" The answer in this case is no. You're t=
hinking about the archetypal macaw, which itself doesn't really even exist.=
&nbsp;</div>

<div><br></div><div>The difference between {le} and {lo} is essentially spe=
cificity. The former requires the speaker to have *particular instances of =
the described selbri* in mind, whereas the latter makes no such promise. {l=
o} is agnostic about specificity, which contributes to it being the never-w=
rong article that can be used anywhere.</div>

<div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I guess i=
n 99% of cases {le} denotes real objects endured in time and space.</div><d=
iv>It's a pity we don't have anti-{le} to explicitly refer to non-specific =
objects. Do we?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>=
</div><div>As for veridicality, enough UD messiness can permit either to be=
 nonveridical. I don't oppose someone being able to refer to the monopoly c=
ar piece with {lo karce} (although I may have in the past) as the piece sat=
isfies some salient property of true karce, i.e. the piece looks like a (ve=
ry small) car, despite not being automotive. Part of the rationale behind t=
hat is that in the "monopoly UD", the pieces do actually satisfy those prop=
erties.</div>

<div><br></div><div>.i mi'e la tsani mu'o</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

------=_Part_643_31489472.1371820535596--