Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 1 Sep 1993 13:21:14 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 1 Sep 1993 13:21:06 -0400
Message-Id: <199309011721.AA05057@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 8406; Wed, 01 Sep 93 13:19:32 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 9068; Wed, 01 Sep 93 13:15:57 EDT
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 10:14:59 -0700
Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: TECH: specifity & definiteness
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Wed,
              01 Sep 93 12:40:50 EDT." <9309011644.AA25182@julia.math.ucla.edu>
Status: O
X-Status: 
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Sep  1 03:14:59 1993
X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET

John Cowan writes:
> Again, with feeling:
>
> Remember that although we loosely refer to LE cmavo as articles, they are
> really more like pronoun+relatives:  "lo kanba" is not "a goat" but
> "that-which-really is-a-goat", because "kanba" is a stative verb, not a noun.

Hear, hear!  In typical conversation one introduces a sumti referent
using "really-is" determiners like {lo} plus enough context, specified
description and restrictive  clauses to let the listener know which
referent it is.  Subsequently, one refers to the same referent using
{le} and the main selbri from the original sumti.  Example:

        mi kurji >lo< kanba             I take care of a goat (introduction)
        .i >le< kanba cu se tugle lo te vomei
                                        The goat (same one) has four legs

The effect is very similar to using a pronoun:

        .i ri se tugle lo te vomei      It has four legs

If you pull out a {le} sumti cold, as when saying:

        le djatru fa kurji              The Lord will provide

you take a big chance with being understood; for example a Hindu might
say "Come on, sahr, you're being frightfully culture-centric to expect
me to know who your theocrat is!"  Thus I think that it's not too
productive to pick on details of how you can expect the listener
to interpret a creatively constructed {le} sumti -- you get what
you deserve!

                -- jimc