From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 19 10:47:50 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 19 May 2005 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DYp7W-0008Rz-7U
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 10:47:42 -0700
Received: from web81306.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.81])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DYp7U-0008Rk-2i
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 10:47:42 -0700
Message-ID: <20050519174701.42416.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 19 May 2005 10:47:01 PDT
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 10:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: {le} and {lo}.
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 9982
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Jorge Llambías
> <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/19/05, Opi Lauma <opi_lauma@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > 1. le gerku - the dog(s)
> > > (one speaks about dog(s) which has/have
> been defined
> > > earlier).
> 
> Actually, I believe, (and I could be wrong,)
> that {le} doesn't have to
> refer to something you've defined earlier. It
> could introduce a new
> reference to a definition (a particular group
> or individual) you have
> in your head, but haven't said anything about
> thus far. So to say "a
> man walks into a bar" you could use "le nanmu
> cu klama lo barja",
> without having mentioned anything about this
> man yet.
> 
> > > About {lo}. Is it right that {lo gerku} =
> {le N
> > > gerku}, where N is a number of all {gerku}
> in the
> > > world?
> > 
> > All of those dogs existing alive at the
> moment of speaking?
> > {lo gerku} does not in general have such a
> precise meaning.
> > It just means "dogs", or "a dog" in a generic
> way. For
> > example to say that the dog is man's best
> friend you would
> > use {lo gerku}: {lo gerku cu xagrai pendo lo
> remna}.
> 
> Now, I believe that what Opi Lauma said would
> have been more true
> before your revised BPFK definition of {lo},
> right? But the BPFK has
> revised {lo} to be a generic article instead of
> whatever it was
> supposed to be before. So Complete Lojban
> Language, and Lojban for
> Beginners, are both out of date in this
> respect. (Particularly, I
> think the section in LFB on lV, lVi, and lV'i
> is particularly
> confusing and unhelpful, especially now.)
> 
This is not the place to get into {lo}
discussions again.  The xorlo, even were it
consistent, would change the way one talked about
{lo} very little and the way one used it scarcely
at all (but those rare cases are doozies). 
Proceed as before and, until you get into
metaphysical discussions (and an occasional
intensional context), you will do just fine with
the old version (it was always generic, it just
is we used to know what that meant).