Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA11512 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 01:08:05 +0200 Message-Id: <199512092308.BAA11512@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 0AF0D775 ; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 0:08:05 +0100 Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 17:57:12 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH HARANGUE: LE/LO X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 738 Lines: 18 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