Message-Id: <199811271103.NAA27440@firat.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 13:01:52 +0200 (EET)
From: Robin Turner <robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR>
To: lojban@onelist.com
In-Reply-To: <199811262322.UAA05494@inca.cgnet.com.br>
Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: [lojban] Re: Descriptors
Content-Length: 2807
Lines: 73


From: Robin Turner <robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR>


On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Gustavo Eulalio wrote:
> On: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:33:01 -0300
> I wrote:
> =---------=---------=---------=---------=
> > 	Could I define the individual descriptors like the following?
> > 	- 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.

Yes, but the distinction between them is pretty subtle and controversial,
as previous discussions on the list show.  The thing to be carfeul about
is using 'le' and 'lo' as substitutes for whatever the definite and
indefinite articles in your native language are (e.g. 'the' and 'a' in
English).  Sometimes they're the same, sometimes they aren't.  My advice
is "when in doubt, use 'le'."

 > > 	I received a private reply confirming the above as valid.
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
> 
> 	-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
> 
> 	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 right, it ought to make a difference.  My interpretion would be:

le ci gerku cu bajra
Three things which I term 'dogs' run, but not necessarily in the same
direction, or even in the same place or at the same time.

lei ci gerku cu bajra
the mass of three things which I term 'dogs' run together

le'i ci gerku cu bajra [?]
a set I have defined as three dogs, runs [?]  


the weirdness of the last example can be taken as implying that le'i/lo'i
only has much practical use when talking about the properties of sets e.g.

le'i gerku cu bajra

would mean that if something is a member of the set I term 'dogs', it
runs.

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
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