X-Digest-Num: 107 Message-ID: <44114.107.584.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 17:25:35 +0300 From: Robin Turner Subject: Re: di'e preti zo nu X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 584 Content-Length: 4192 Lines: 118 la xorxes cusku di'e > la xod presku di'e > > >ma rinka le nu do'o na ciska lu lo nu li'u > > If I understand correctly, you're asking why don't we write > {lo nu} instead of {le nu}. I will give you my answer, which > does not necessarily agree with what others think. > > Sometimes I do use {lo nu}, but you're right that {le nu} > is much more frequent. I don't think this has anything > to do with {nu} in particular. It reflects the fact that {le} > is much more frequently used than {lo} in general. > True, though maybe not for the reasons below. > > As I understand it, {le} is used when the referent has > been already identified or is readily identifiable by the > description, whereas {lo} is used for unidentified or > even unidentifiable referents. Some people get fixated > on the veridicality issue and forget this other distinction, > which I consider much more significant in determining > the choice of article. I think the veridicality property is > just a consequence of this more basic one of > identifiability, and rarely helps in deciding which > article should be used. While I am reluctant to reopen the notorious le/lo debate, I think we really need to clarify this point. The veridical/non-veridical distinction is semantic, while the known/unknown distinction is pragmatic. We need to decide which takes precedence, and unfortunately the book is not terribly helpful here. > > For example, if I say: > > le plise cu cpana le jubme > The apple is on the table. > > I am giving you valuable information. Presumably you > already know which apple and which table I'm talking > about, and if not, you should not have much trouble > in identifying them. If there are no clues in the context > about which apple or which table I mean, then I should > not have used {le}. This is hard to justify in terms of Lojban semantics as they currently exist, which enable one to use {le} for anything except for cmene. I tend to use {le} as a default article, and {lo} P to mean a member of the set P (OK, it could be more than one member, but the default is one, I think). I suppose this is like Turkish "bir". > Of course, in all likelihood the apple > is a real apple and the table is a real table, so the > veridicality isssue doesn't enter into it. In this particular example, true. But not always. [cut] > {le nanmu poi na nanmu} is an example of this, but it shouldn't > be taken as the prototypical use of {le}! I don't think it was intended as a prototype. {le plise cu cpana le jubme} is prototypical, {le nanmu poi na nanmu} is peripheral, and hence more useful in drawing the boundary between {le} and {lo}, just as the perihperal cases of ostriches and bats are more useful in drawing the line between birds and mammals than prototypes such as robins and cows. > In most cases, > {le broda cu broda} is actually true. That {le} allows for some > leeway in this respect does not mean that veridicality is a > significant issue in the choice of article. But in the grammar as we have it, the opposite is the case. > > Now, in the specific case of {nu}, in most cases we have > a specific and identifiable event in mind: > > mi gleki le nu do presku le selsnu > I am happy that you asked about the subject. > > I am happy about a readily identifiable event: your asking > about this subject. The context makes it clear that it is this > subject that we're discussing now, and that it is this recent > event of you asking. If I had used {lo}, I would not be identifying > which event I mean. > Neither, strictly speaking, are you doing so with {le}; it is the context which identifies, not the article. As Jorge himself wrote some time back > Maybe we can even make a properly lojbanic proverb based on > this and playing with complements and opposites: > > i le zunle cu se pritu > i le gapru cu se cnita > i le xamgu cu se xlali > It is not clear which left-person, high-person and good-person is referred to, and in fact, since these are Lojbanic proverbs, noparticular referent is intended. Perhaps, post-baseline, the best thing to do is scrap {lo} altogether. co'o mi'e robin.