From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Jul 22 06:13:56 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.111]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ewxh-0000Dv-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:13:49 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-55-46.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.55.46]) by lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8771E781 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:13:16 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <002801c35053$0678e600$c2e1fea9@oemcomputer> From: "And Rosta" To: References: <20030721180838.U72693-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> <00df01c34fd9$2cf11340$55350751@oemcomputer> <20030722005320.GA61835@allusion.net> Subject: [lojban] Re: le du (was: use of ko'a) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:59:24 +0100 Organization: Livagian Consulate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 5952 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Jordan: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:41:02PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > How do you use le du? > > > > As a specific reference without any identificatory description > > > > -- much like English "them". > > > Could you give an example text in Lojban? > > le du cu frili > > -- where "le du" might here refer to the act of giving an example > > text in Lojban. > > How does {le du} (something like the thing which I describe as being > equal to some thing(s) (which are obviously itself, because they > are equal to it...)) differ from {le co'e}? {co'e} points the hearer to a specific category/property/sense, which, as with all specific reference, the hearer identifies through glorking. The gadri or quantifier then applies to this specific property -- & any of {su'o co'e}, {ro co'e}, {le co'e} etc. are fully sensical. {le co'e} refers to a certain specific individual that has a certain specific property; the hearer must first identify the property and then use the identified property as guidance in then identifying the individual. In contrast, {le du} refers to a certain specific individual, but supplies only the most vacuous of descriptions. The hearer must therefore identify the referent without the benefit of guidance from a description. (Incidentally, my unorthodox view of English personal pronouns is that they mean {ro co'e}, not {le du}.) > (That is, aside from being more esoteric). Anything but the most vapid banalities currently seem esoteric, as would be the case with any language whose speech community is composed solely of beginners. --And.