From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 04 06:04:56 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 May 2006 06:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbdVU-0000Ws-Tk for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 06:04:37 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.224]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbdVS-0000Wk-Rh for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 06:04:36 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i13so364194wra for ; Thu, 04 May 2006 06:04:33 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RLQg0mdiAzayXIuukXu08wwkNW3oiW1QJitnPlGlrHYOp3HUzvj9gc01mxdq/iMkbaqphWUiToET7Q0Nlgz8sQR+ZoqulZJ277P2Q4Rz0iCW1JUPe8p20WX2H492pi8x7Nz2Zz1JnGxnv+z5UKIFPozI9bIOBX7v5ugXt3Lbnas= Received: by 10.54.145.10 with SMTP id s10mr664260wrd; Thu, 04 May 2006 06:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.18 with HTTP; Thu, 4 May 2006 06:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605040604s4366e278h5385c63dc7c0aacc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 10:04:33 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605031836w12547ba3n87934504df64c309@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11372 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > I am now more definite in my understanding of how lo and le work, but > I don't (yet) see their utility. le seems to be simply a specific > variant of lo - it's lo, but you imply that if someone asks, you can > provide more details on the referant (probably because you've seen > it). I think of {le} as standing somewhere between {lo} and {la}. With {lo} the meaning of the following word is all important and whether or not the speaker has any particular referent identified is irrelevant. With {la}, having a particular referent identified by the following word is all important but the meaning of the word is practically irrelevant. With {le}, it is important that the speaker has a referent identified, but also the meaning of the word is relevant, since it is that meaning and not some arbitrary convention that is used to convey to the audience which particular referent the speaker has in mind. > Additionally, it also has (what I'll call) an abstracter that > lets you say something like "(what I'll call)". Yes, I don't think the "non-veridicality" of {le} is all that important. I think it's a consequence of its function more than a central feature. In most cases {le broda} should be used to refer to things that really are broda. > I would think that > this abstractor feature would work better as cmavo that said > "something that by my quick definition is X" - perhaps in addition to > another cmavo that lets you say "something to do with X", which would > let you refer to bear paste by using it + cribe. Perhaps these already > exist. {tu'a X} is "something to do with X" but only in the sense of some relationship of which X is a participant. I don't think you could use {tu'a lo cribe} for "bear paste". You could say {lo cribe co'e} for "bear thingummy". I can't think of anything for "what I'll call a bear" other than {le}. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.