Message-Id: <199309012015.AA26288@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 16:13:31 EDT
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Desperately seeking [properties]
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: O

I think context has a lot to do with what "le" means.  If the referent has
not been mentioned before, it generally means that the speaker has a
specific one in mind, or at least could identify a specific if asked.
The listener need not know what the referent is, but if not, the listener
can ask "le ki'a" and the speaker oughta be able to answer.  Since the
essence of language in most usages is communication, the speaker better
have in mind trying to indicate the specific referent if it isn't obvious,
through restrictive relative clauses, pointing, or whatever.

Once a referent has been mentioned, using "le" is pretty clear a back-reference
(i.e. anaphora), as well as obviously something both the speaker and listener
should then be able to identify.

"bi'u" is only relevant if it is not obvious from context, and probably when
you are using a sentence order that may in some way suggest something is
known or not known contrary to YOUR normal usage, because you are a native
speaker of a language where word order normally conveys this informatiuon.
I would not expect it to be used heavily between speakers of the same
language unless that language had explict marking of new information inherent
to the language.  It tends to be redundant to "le" (Russian uses word order
to distinguish between new and old information, not having articles).

Thus "le" is first of all specific and descriptive.  It is second of all an
statement implying listener knowledge and/or the right to ask for such
specification.

lojbab