From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 04 15:27:57 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 May 2006 15:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbmIM-0001rd-Df for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 15:27:38 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.231]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbmIJ-0001rV-U1 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 15:27:38 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i34so446877wra for ; Thu, 04 May 2006 15:27:34 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=uhI0LRMORetyz79lOlAH7+cp7gHDCunLFWvx2jl38Fle4K9NrcPWglqJuhLbz2U/P0KPOBLdsGpFwwa/eEGUFn4vbY8TT5kV0HPY+POLqq//rSfBGxQq0QWsoqVwrHNU0rU1su4FqBsmADmOZQ1BrkAHF8Ds3S6Kun5k3spLzVs= Received: by 10.65.218.14 with SMTP id v14mr51369qbq; Thu, 04 May 2006 15:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.218.2 with HTTP; Thu, 4 May 2006 15:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:27:29 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: <925d17560605040604s4366e278h5385c63dc7c0aacc@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605031836w12547ba3n87934504df64c309@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605040604s4366e278h5385c63dc7c0aacc@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11376 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/4/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > I think of {le} as standing somewhere between {lo} and {la}. With {lo} > the meaning of the following word is all important and whether or not > the speaker has any particular referent identified is irrelevant. > With {la}, having a particular referent identified by the following word > is all important but the meaning of the word is practically irrelevant. > With {le}, it is important that the speaker has a referent identified, but > also the meaning of the word is relevant, since it is that meaning and > not some arbitrary convention that is used to convey to the audience > which particular referent the speaker has in mind. This is a (helpful) rule more than a definition/explanation. For the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to drop non-veridicality from the definition of le. You said that it was "a consequence of its function more than a central feature", and I agree. Specifically, I think that this feature emerged as a sort of "well, it's ok if the speaker messes up here, because we can understand regardless". Whatever the case, I think that it's secondary to the discussion, and would only confuse it. The problem might be with the current definition, "...that I have in mind". This seems to translate to: lo cribe + and I have this bear "in mind". What does that mean? As stated, this does not mean "something that has already been introduced into the conversation". So is it that I've encountered this bear personally? What does it mean to have the bear "in mind"? Is it opposed to, say, "any bear", or "bears in general", or "bearness", or "all bears typically"? Because (unless I'm mistaken) Lojban handles those cases in other ways. Perhaps "in mind" isn't a very useful definition? I'll try to roughly guess at what exactly this distinction could be. The focus is on bears (and not on berries). In "(I see) bears eating my berries", both may then be used: {le cribe cu citka le jbari} suggests that I'm focusing on the unique thing, to say something about it. Perhaps we've seen that the bear is getting quite fat, and aha! I've caught him eating berries, so now we know why. {lo cribe cu citka le jbari} suggests that I'm focusing on bears in general, to say something about them. So the distinction then is that le invites the listener to draw conclusions regarding that specific thing (the bear), and lo regarding bears in general. Perhaps a better example: Let's say that a girl runs her car into something. This was witnessed by the girl's father, and by a bigot. The girls father says "THAT girl can't drive" (le), the bigot says "that GIRL can't drive" (lo). Is this an accurate demonstration? (I prepare for the response "no, both should use 'le', because they have a specific woman in mind" - in which case I would ask "so le is used when you have actually _encountered_ the certain thing?") I've suggested a few distinctions - introduce (lo) vs already introduced (le) (wrong), le means "encountered" and so suggests that more can be said about it, and that le invites the listener to draw conclusions regarding the thing/referant vs lo that invites [...] regarding, say, bears in general. Are any of these correct? I would like to have what "in mind" means explained. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.