From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:27 2010 Reply-To: "Robert J. Chassell" Sender: Lojban list Date: Thu Dec 7 11:26:43 1995 From: "Robert J. Chassell" Subject: le/lo [simple, controversial] X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, bob@rattlesnake.com To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199512070109.UAA12466@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu> (message from Jorge Llambias on Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:09:29 -0500) Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 7 11:26:43 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: > could someone please tell me the difference between {le} and {lo}? Jorge says: The difference between {le} and {lo}, as I understand it, is this: le broda = each of the broda that I'm talking about. lo broda = at least one of all the broda that there are. Using {le broda} means that you assume that your audience knows or can figure out which one(s) you mean. Using {lo broda} means that you are not giving any indication as to which of all broda satisfies the relationship in question, you are only saying that there is at least one of them that does. (Others view it somewhat differently, giving more importance to veridicality.) Please note that Jorge's phrase "somewhat differently" is most diplomatically discrete. The issue is full of controversy. Some of us feel strongly that the designate/veridical distinction is salient and interesting; and that this distinction brings in a second issue, namely the extent of the universe covered in a conversation. Here are the definitions from the cmavo list of 06/01/93: le LE the described non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as ... lo LE the really is veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are) ... First, let me repeat what is not controversial and is agreed on by all: namely that `le' refers to what the speaker has in mind and is describing it as, even though that thing may not actually be what is described. For example: le mlatu cu cpana le tubme That which I designate as a cat is atop that which I designate as a table. Perhaps the entity on the table is a stuffed toy -- not a real cat. So long as I designate it as a cat, and you understand, all is well. The {mlatu} part of {le mlatu} is supposed to hint at what I am talking about; but I am just making a designation. I am not making any claim of what it `really is'. Now {lo}: lo mlatu cu cpana lo tubme One or more of those entities that really are cats is atop one or more of those entities that really are tables. To my mind, there are two important parts of this utterance; the first is that I am claiming the cat and the table `really are'. The second, which I will get to later, concerns the implicit size of the universe of discourse. Veridicality requires that there exist a joint mechanism for you and me and anyone else in the conversation to determine what `really is' a cat and what `really is' a table. The utterance is false unless (a) there is what is really a cat on the table, (b) there is what is really a table on which the cat lies, and (c) the cat is atop the table. Of course there are many mechanisms by which one determines what `really is'. The most believable by a lone individual is indicated by the evidential {se'o}: se'o I know by internal experience [senva] For example: se'o lo mlatu cu cpana lo tubme I have a vision, a cat is on a table! If I am talking to myself and I believe my vision, then I will take this utterance as veridical. If you take as truth what I claim as knowing by internal experience, you, too, will take this as veridical. In our culture (and I believe in most cultures), the most common mechanism for determining whether something is true is indiciated by {ka'u}: ka'u I know by cultural means [kulnu] For example: ka'u na ku lo mlatu cu cpana lo tubme .i le mlatu se kelci I know by cultural means that it is false that what is really a cat is on the table. That which I designate as a cat is a toy. We learn what is a `real' cat or dog or car or boat when very young, as part of our learning the meanings of words. Science is way of determining veridicality that is most potent for a group of people. Science is a clever `truth-evaluation' technique that combines several mechanisms. But the actual practice of `that which really is science' is fairly rare. Even in a science-based culture, most of what is called scientific knowledge is learned from school teachers or newsreporters in a manner that lacks veridicality testing. (Incidentally, Lojban lacks a gismu for science; the closest gismu, {saske}, applies to "usually-coherent knowledge garnered/gathered/assembled by a consistent methodology".) The second important part of an utterance with {lo} concerns the size of the universe relevant to the discussion. Jorge says: Using {lo broda} means that you are not giving any indication as to which of all broda satisfies the relationship in question, you are only saying that there is at least one of them that does. This means that if there is a real cat and a toy cat in the room, and the real cat is on the table, you don't know whether I am talking about that real cat when I say: ka'u na ku lo mlatu cu cpana lo tubme .i le mlatu se kelci since I might be talking about one or more cats a thousand miles away. As Jorge says, "you are not giving any indication as to which of all broda satisfies the relationship in question". Indeed, were I to use Jorge's defintion, I know by observation, that I could never say that utterance truthfully. There are reasons for Jorge's definition, but I don't appreciate them at all. I figure the range of what is relevant to a conversation is or should be defined in that conversation. All conversations should be permitted to have a stated or implicit temporal and spatial tense, which restricts reference. (Often, these are {va vi'u}, a medium distance throughout a volume centered on the speaker, and {ca ze'a ca}, an interval starting a medium time interval in the past and extending a medium time interval in the future of the speaker's current time.) In the example of a real cat and a toy, the relevant universe consists of only those two entities. In this case, {le mlatu} is likely to refer to both the entities, unless I am more specific, whereas {lo mlatu} can refer to only and to exactly one entity, the real cat. (Hence, it may be mistaken to use the common gloss of {le} as `the' and {lo} as `a'.) To my mind, if you do not want to give "any indication as to which of all broda satisfies the relationship in question", you can do that by stating that context. But as I say, usage is highly controversial. Meanwhile, {le} tends to be overused, {lo} underused, and {lo'e} hardly used at all. Robert J. Chassell bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu 25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@rattlesnake.com Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725