Date:  Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:26:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711181926.OAA13108@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      lo`e, le`e
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 2625
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 18 14:26:53 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Jorge:
> And:
> >>  >>                             mi sisku lo'e plejykarce
> >> >>                             "I'm looking for a taxi."
> >> >>
>  >But anyway, I would beware of anything that can't be mechanically
> >translated into logical terms. "I am book-reading" would
> >mean "there is a book and I am reading it", while "I am
> >taxi-seeking" would not mean "There is a taxi and I am seeking
> >it".
>
> But {mi tcidu lo'e cukta} would not always mean "there is a book
> and I am reading it". For example:
>
>                         mi tcidu lo'e cukta ze'a le crisa
>                         I was reading books all summer long.

That is

   All summer long there was a book such that I was reading it.

as opposed to

   There was a book such that all summer long I was reading it.

We're not in disagreement. See below.

> I realize that there is a difference with intentional selbri, but
> sometimes it is the case that there is a box such that I need
> that particular box, and I want to be able to say that easily:
> {mi nitcu le va tanxe} = "I need that box over there". That
> requires some way to refer to needing a box when there
> may not necessarily be one, and I think {mi nitcu lo'e tanxe}
> is right for the job. But it certainly is very weird that, for example,
>  {le se nitcu} and {le se sisku} are defined so differently.

We know from experience that matters of convenience of usage
matter far more to you than they do to me.

> >I would be happier if you used lujvo rather than this lo`e
> >method. At least with lujvo we know they can have idiosyncratic,
> >nonmechanical translations into logical terms.
>
> With {lo'e} too. Or do you have a mechanical way of translating
> {lo'e} into logical terms?

Officially, I think noone really knows what {lo`e} means.

You have unilaterally given {lo`e} a very very useful but
unofficial definition:

   The normal rules on quantifiers (scoping within localmost
   bridi, scoping left-to-right within bridi) do not apply
   to {lo`e}. The appropriate quantifier and scope for the
   sumti introduced by {lo`e} is glorked (to use the Cowanian
   term) or pragged (to use the Bogartian) from context.

We could even have {le`e} as a nonveridical counterpart of the
same thing.

However, I am sure that this is unofficial. The actual definitions
of {lo`e} and {le`e} are vague to the point of uselessness (unless
they sharpened up since the version of refgrammar I read; I
haven't been able to reach xiron today due to problems at
my end), but they certainly do not have the definitions you
suggest, vastly more clear and useful though they are.

--And