From @gate.demon.co.uk,@uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 07 22:49:53 1995 Received: from punt.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3289 ; Wed, 07 Jun 95 22:49:50 BST Received: from punt.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Wed, 07 Jun 95 21:12:46 GMT Received: from gate.demon.co.uk by punt.demon.co.uk id aa00203; 7 Jun 95 22:12 +0100 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by gate.demon.co.uk id aa21486; 7 Jun 95 20:24 GMT-60:00 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2106; Wed, 07 Jun 95 15:22:40 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0384; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:42:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:34:09 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: lo vs. le - the in mind distinction X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506072024.aa21486@gate.demon.co.uk> Status: R >English uses the indefinite article for first mention. "I met _a_ man >this morning. He was wearing a hat." > >I don't think this is required in Lojban. Would you say {mi penmi le >nanmu ca le cerni i ny dasni lo mapku} or {mi penmi lo nanmu ca le cerni >i ny dasni lo mapku}? The lo version would certainly be a weaker statement. I think it better to turn to colloquial English to understand what we probably mean here. The parentheticals below are hyper-colloquials - think of a nice southern drawl. "I met this(-here) man this morning, (see), and he was wearing this hat." This version more accurate captures the sense that there really is an in-mind man, and probably the hat as well. lojbab