From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Dec  9 18:20:50 1995
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Date: Sat Dec 9 18:20:50 1995
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH HARANGUE: LE/LO
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
Message-ID: <3Som1CTKnHD.A.7CF.Hu0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

I agree with And's explanation of le/lo, I disagree with how
he resolves this potential ambiguity:

> (In {Koa krici leduu le broda cu brode} there is an ambiguity,
> as to who knows which thing it is that koa believes to be a brode
> - it may be either me, the speaker, or koa. There are ways to rephrase
> in order to force the reading that it's me who knows, so the default
> interpretation of the above example should be that it is koa who
> knows.)

The default should be the speaker, because it is not ko'a who is using
the language. Koha might not even speak Lojban and it still be true
that ko'a krici ledu'u le broda cu brode.

To refer to Koha's use of {le broda} you can say {ko'a krici la'e
lu le broda cu brode li'u}.

Jorge