From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>
To: "lojban" <lojban@onelist.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:01:27 -0300
Message-ID: <01be1bf4$93b5fbe0$82770ed1@roble.intermedia.com.ar>
Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [lojban] Re: Descriptors
Content-Length: 3088
Lines: 76


From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>

la guctav cusku di'e

>> - le = one or more of those each of which a describe as X.
>> - lo = one or more of those each of which really is a X.
>> - la = one or more of those each of which is named X.
>
> I received a private reply confirming the above as valid.

It is not completely valid. It is for {lo}, but not exactly for {le} and
{la}.

{le mlatu} is "each one of those I describe as a cat (in this context)",
not just one or more of them. For example, {mi viska le mlatu}
mens "I see each of the cats", and not "I see at least one of the cats".

Remember that {le mlatu} is by definition equivalent to
{ro le su'o mlatu}, and {lo mlatu} is by definition {su'o lo ro mlatu}.

>So, I
>ask now: Is the following also right?
>
> -lei = a part or the whole of a mass of those I describe as X
> -loi = a part or the whole of a mass of those which really are X
> -lai = a part or the whole of a mass of those named X

That is what the book says, but I use {lei} in the same way as {le},
i.e. for the whole mass, and not for "a part or the whole". For example,
I would not say {lei cukta cu grake li ciki'o} = "the books weigh 3 kg" if
only part of the books weighed that. To me that means that the whole
mass of books weighs 3 kg.

> -le'i = the set of those I describe as X
> -lo'i = the set of those which really are X
> -la'i = the set of those named X

Yes, although my recomendation is never to use them. If these are
supposed to be mathematical sets, they don't have much use in ordinary
language. Even in places where they are apparently needed, it is not
clear to me why they would be better than masses. For example:

        mi cuxna lo creka lei nenri be le dacru
        I choose a shirt from among the ones inside the drawer.

        mi cuxna lo creka le'i nenri be le dacru
        I choose a shirt from the set of ones inside the drawer.

Is the second expression in any way clearer than the first?
Does it add anything? I don't see the point of having the set articles.

> My doubts in these cases rely on "lei/le'i". The Reference
>Grammar defines them as:
> - lei => "... a mass I describe as ..."
>   instead of: "... a mass OF THOSE I describe as ..."
> - le'i=> "... a set described as ..."
>   instead of: "... a set OF THOSE I describe as ..."
> I know this difference may sound insignificant, but, since
>Lojban is a so "thorough" language, I thought this could make some
>difference.


You're absolutely right. {lei mlatu} is a mass of those I describe as cats,
not a mass that I describe as a cat.

co'o mi'e xorxes


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com