From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 05 17:45:36 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 17:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcAv6-0005AB-1M for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 17:45:16 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.235]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcAv1-0005A1-LC for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 17:45:15 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i13so714933wra for ; Fri, 05 May 2006 17:45:10 -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=RnxWvZi1Vh65bBbZ3szniYB1B527Hto08ftlEGQm/udLGPKWKeVXPC5CAbqKQphv5l7N2ynhVHMYsQ8z/gQNuuO+/KqAnjy9bV4b2hL51eHR1XgLRqueokB73BYUN/dCackTIltOOvMjfJblNW6cjVcoEoa9aO3YFQNsPUFB3HE= Received: by 10.54.127.2 with SMTP id z2mr1821035wrc; Fri, 05 May 2006 17:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.18 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2006 17:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605051745m294b69c7m645ccc5cf61d037f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 21:45:10 -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: <20060505125724.6757.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560605051356y14c8bc45xf602f0e8189b1d5e@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11402 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 5/5/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/5/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote > > > particular, specified persons or things: the baby; the dress I wore. > > > > Yes, that's what {le} is for. > > As opposed to what? "any"? "all"? As opposed to "generic, unspecified". That which {le} indicates and {lo} doesn't is specificity. > "the baby" can be illustrated by {lo pa cifnu}, It could be, in the same sense that past tense can be gotten from context instead of from {pu}. But {le} indicates specificity explicitly. > "any baby" by {pa lo > cifnu} (more specifically, by {pa lo ro cifnu}). But then, just {lo > cinfu} and some context should be enough. Yes. > > > Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group > > > or type as the most outstanding or prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive > > > to be the neighborhood to live in these days. > > > > No, {le} won't do for that. > > Neither would {lo}, correct? Right. I don't really know how to get quite the same effect. {ba'e} won't do either. I suppose one has to rely on an explicit predicate: {jinvi lo du'u la leik cor draiv cu ralju lo jarbu lo ka se xabju kei ca lo cabna} or something. > > > Used to indicate uniqueness: the Prince of Wales; the moon. > > > > {le} can be used there, but it won't really indicate uniqueness. > > {lo pa} is better to indicate that. > > Uniqueness can be indicated using po'o, or whichever one it is. {?? ti > nobli turni la uels.}, where ?? is a placeholder for whatever is used > to say "{ti} and only {ti} fits here". {po'o}, but it goes after the thing it sticks to, so {ti po'o}. But that's a whole bridi. {po'o} indicates that only the referent(s) of a given sumti fit in some slot. You can't use {po'o} to indicate that the referent of a given sumti is unique, which is what "the" supposedly indicates. (I doubt "the" actually indicates anything of the sort, I suspect it goes the other way, when the referent is unique, then "the" can be used, but "the" doesn't really indicate uniqueness.) > {lo pa} or {le pa} could both work. I should have said {lo ro pa} actually. In any case, uniqueness does not seem to be something that one actually needs to indicate very often. > {lo nobli turni (la uels...)} > would be in reference to the actual prince of wales. {be la uels}. > We know that > there is only one through context, so {pa} is probably not needed. Yes, I think that's the case in most of this kind of cases. > If > I had a pet chimp, I could happily refer to him as {le nobli turni (la > uels...)}, "the prince of wales has destroyed the curtains yet again". > If I had a pet chimp and I was delusional, and thought that he was the > actual prince of wales, I would refer to him using {lo nobli turni (la > uels...)}. If the chimp's name was "prince of wales", or if that was a frequent nickname you use for him, {la} would be better. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see how it would work for a nonce use. But if you think the description will be helpful for your audience, yes, why not. It is perfectly possible to use {le nobli turni be la uels} for the real Prince of Wales, since it is a particular, specified nobli turni be la uels, and that would be the first interpretation that comes to mind in the absence of context to the contrary. > > > Used before nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the > > > compass: the weather; a wind from the south. > > > > No, plain {lo} will do. > > Why? By the current definition, won't "the weather" be referred to > using {le}? (Which indicates that {le} is used when you've encountered > the thing, that is, when it was directly relevant to your experience.) I suppose you could too, yes. But for "the south" I'd go with {lo snanu}. since it's not about some specific southern thing. And I wouldn't use {le} for something like "the weather has been very warm lately". > > > Used as the equivalent of a possessive adjective before names of some > > > parts of the body: grab him by the neck; an infection of the hand. > > > > Can be used there, but plain {lo} will do. > > Again, if you're talking about a specific neck, don't you mean {le}? Yes, I think it can, but plain {lo} will often do just as well. > "an infection of the hand" would be better expressed as x3 of {xance > bilma}. Probably yes, but if you are asked to expand the tanru, {le xance} will not work for "an infection of the hand" in general. > > > Used before a noun specifying a field of endeavor: the law; the film industry; > > > the stage. > > > > No, plain {lo} is better. > > {loi}, if we're talking about laws, stages, or film industries as a > mass. "Join the film industry" = "[you, {ko}] participate in (the mass > of all things that are the film industry)". "The law is on my side" = > "(that which is the mass of all things that are laws) is on my side". {lo} is always a good substitute for {loi}. If {loi} did not exist, I wouldn't miss it. > > > Used before the plural form of a numeral denoting a specific decade of a > > > century or of a life span: rural life in the Thirties. > > > > Doubtful. Plain {lo} would probably do. > > {la fiftis.} is I think the most direct translation, given the > capitalization of, say "the Fifties". You'd have to get into some > rather large sentances if you wanted to use {lo}. {la fiftis} is awful for "los años cincuenta" = "the Fifties". I might go with something like {lo/le mumco'e dekna'a}, "the five-something decade". > > > Used before a singular noun indicating that the noun is generic: The wolf > > > is an endangered species. > > > > No, that's {lo}. > > {loi labno cu [cease typeof danger-facer]} is more appropriate, I think. > {lo'e labno cu [cease typeof danger-facer]} - when you want to imply > that the typical wolf might not breed, and his line will die out. I would go with plain {lo}. I avoid {lo'e} even more than {loi}. In any case, it's not {le}. > > > Used before an adjective extending it to signify a class and giving it the > > > function of a noun: the rich; the dead; the homeless. > > > > No, that's {lo}. > > "the rich are destroying this country" - {loi ricfu}, "the dead fill > the afterlife-place" - {loi morsi}. Again, I would prefer {lo}. > > > Used before an absolute adjective: the best we can offer. > > > > That's {lo}. > > Why not le? > > What's the gismu for best? x2 of {[best typeof] friti}. No gismu, but there's the lujvo {xagrai}. In some cases {le} might work there, but not in general. For example "we always try to bring the best we can offer". It's not about a particular, specified thing. > > > Used before a present participle, signifying the action in the abstract: > > > the weaving of rugs. > > > > That's {lo nu}. > > Why not le? Again, in some particular context {le} might work for that, but not in general. For instance "they specialize in the weaving of rugs". It is not something said about a particular event of weaving. > > > Used before a noun with the force of per: cherries at $1.50 the box. > > > > No, that needs some other construction. > > Yeah. It's also very interesting, in that it's a nounish relationship. > Kinda like jdima, but the relationship would be: > [thing] is priced at [price] for [quantity] > Looks like English is making some progress. One could say {lo tanxe be lo jbari cu rupnu li pa pi mu no}, "a box of berries is at $1.50". 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.