From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 03 19:25:50 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 03 May 2006 19:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbTX2-0004UI-HU for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 19:25:32 -0700 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbTX0-0004U9-P6 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 19:25:32 -0700 Received: (qmail 1506 invoked by uid 60001); 4 May 2006 02:25:29 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=SzxKqyokWYzHBMyvPUyVPXpcaIt/M6mI1PXELJSQqOg3iVvzn1S/8m2zxKdEH/HjlQphGquMljaG9zl7y0A2g7agR/QA10QJycIHL/aQr4tzfz2W1rhIyNKRpuYUoY5rgk4+5i/E1avXfSTjivu40L2j4qkpNYSbcKSl74ADOWk= ; Message-ID: <20060504022529.1504.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.152.10] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 03 May 2006 19:25:29 PDT Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 19:25:29 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11368 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 Generally speaking (I would say always, but there are arguments for exceptions) {lo broda} is a primary occurrence (not in the scope of an odd number of negations, not in the scope of {da'i}and the like, or in an abstraction clause -- including {tu'a}, and not in an otherwise opaque context [there are unfortunately some left]) does require that brodas exist. Of course, given that no modal-like modifications of bridi are obligatory, you can get by by saying that some such is implicit. --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > I suggest that the following are the complete > definitions for lo and le: > > lo: introduces the referent/entity. > le: refers to an already introduced > referent/entity, as da/de/mi do, > but with the aid of what I'll call a tag. > > The referent/entity has a specific unique > identity, and does not need > to exist in reality. > > Examples: (tense and plurality is ignored) > > {lo mirli} = "conceive/imagine a thing that > is a deer". > {le cribe cu citka le jbari} = "it (the bear) > ate it (the berries)". > > The current definitions, which I believe to be > only approximate to how > lo and le should be used: > > le: non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) > described as > lo: veridical descriptor: the one(s) that > really is(are) > > > To (hopefully) illustrate the point, three > examples (ju'a is not > implied, and no context exists): > > le X after lo X clearly refers to the > referent/entity introduced by lo: > > lo mirli cu fetsi "imagine a deer such that > it's female" > le mirli cu bajra "it (the deer) such that it > runs" > > The second refers to the mirli introduced in > the first. > > > It is inappropriate to use le unless it is > clear within the context of > the conversation what we're referring to. > > le gerku "it (the dog)" > > If the listener hasn't conceived/imagined > something that's like a > gerku, then this will not make sense. (If the > speaker hasn't conceived > imagined it, then something is very wrong.) It > should, however, be > perfectly acceptable to say: > > le plini "it (the planet)" > > This is (roughly) because "the planet" needs no > introduction. (A more > detailed argument would state that the > introduction of concepts is > simply a courtesy to keep people from becoming > confused, and that it > may merely be this and convention that keeps us > from saying, without > context, "it is the dog, and it bit me". But > I'd rather not get into > that.) > > > If lo is used twice, even if the > referents/entities introduced by both > lo are similar, there is no indication that > they are the same. > > lo ci cribe cu citka le jbari "imagine 3 > bears such that they eat berries" > lo ci cribe cu bajra "imagine 3 bears such > that they run" > > There is no indication that the 3 bears > mentioned first are the three > bears mentioned second. > > > If this is exactly what the current definitions > of le and lo mean, > then that's good, but the wording should > definitely be changed, > because it doesn't explain a damned thing > regarding the above. > > If I've misunderstood the current definitions, > if you believe that the > current definitions work better than the ones > I've suggested, if you > believe that the ones I've suggested aren't > complete, or if you have > any other comment, then please enlighten me. > > I would especially like to hear xorxes' > response. > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to > lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to > http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to > secretary@lojban.org for help. > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.