From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 05 15:38:04 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 15:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc8vh-00055u-R9 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 15:37:45 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.228]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc8ve-00055l-2r for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 15:37:45 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i32so684025wra for ; Fri, 05 May 2006 15:37:40 -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=jky1qW0NDjKZk7A9Rc3JxGg8Y/4nsJK3xvJErzK55LHyiLDkrigLSVUOnIWgoRWrWZtYaVS9AD4TGl6brTbmiSFxHgBE4i+p0H06T2FsR293hUBLewv1COP6DXTpEemoIepyhiULLwsjL3NDur0U6EQNR/KGUOQoLQqVSeSOIdU= Received: by 10.65.43.6 with SMTP id v6mr805229qbj; Fri, 05 May 2006 15:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.218.2 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2006 15:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 16:37:40 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: <925d17560605051356y14c8bc45xf602f0e8189b1d5e@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: <20060505125724.6757.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560605051356y14c8bc45xf602f0e8189b1d5e@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11401 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 Sorry, I re-read and understand what you're illustrating (examples of how le and lo are used, though there's no definite definition that I was expecting). In my counterexamples, I'll use primarily the cmavo-list/my definition of "lo". On 5/5/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > Let's do an experiment. This is the definition of "the" from dictionary.com, > and my comments on where "the" corresponds to {le} and where it does not: > > > Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote > > particular, specified persons or things: the baby; the dress I wore. > > Yes, that's what {le} is for. As opposed to what? "any"? "all"? "the baby" can be illustrated by {lo pa cifnu}, "any baby" by {pa lo cifnu} (more specifically, by {pa lo ro cifnu}). But then, just {lo cinfu} and some context should be enough. > > Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group > > or type as the most outstanding or prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive > > to be the neighborhood to live in these days. > > No, {le} won't do for that. Neither would {lo}, correct? > > Used to indicate uniqueness: the Prince of Wales; the moon. > > {le} can be used there, but it won't really indicate uniqueness. > {lo pa} is better to indicate that. Uniqueness can be indicated using po'o, or whichever one it is. {?? ti nobli turni la uels.}, where ?? is a placeholder for whatever is used to say "{ti} and only {ti} fits here". {lo pa} or {le pa} could both work. {lo nobli turni (la uels...)} would be in reference to the actual prince of wales. We know that there is only one through context, so {pa} is probably not needed. If I had a pet chimp, I could happily refer to him as {le nobli turni (la uels...)}, "the prince of wales has destroyed the curtains yet again". If I had a pet chimp and I was delusional, and thought that he was the actual prince of wales, I would refer to him using {lo nobli turni (la uels...)}. > > Used before nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the > > compass: the weather; a wind from the south. > > No, plain {lo} will do. Why? By the current definition, won't "the weather" be referred to using {le}? (Which indicates that {le} is used when you've encountered the thing, that is, when it was directly relevant to your experience.) > > Used as the equivalent of a possessive adjective before names of some > > parts of the body: grab him by the neck; an infection of the hand. > > Can be used there, but plain {lo} will do. Again, if you're talking about a specific neck, don't you mean {le}? "an infection of the hand" would be better expressed as x3 of {xance bilma}. > > Used before a noun specifying a field of endeavor: the law; the film industry; > > the stage. > > No, plain {lo} is better. {loi}, if we're talking about laws, stages, or film industries as a mass. "Join the film industry" = "[you, {ko}] participate in (the mass of all things that are the film industry)". "The law is on my side" = "(that which is the mass of all things that are laws) is on my side". > > Used before a proper name, as of a monument or ship: the Alamo; the Titanic. > > No, that's {la}. I agree. > > Used before the plural form of a numeral denoting a specific decade of a > > century or of a life span: rural life in the Thirties. > > Doubtful. Plain {lo} would probably do. {la fiftis.} is I think the most direct translation, given the capitalization of, say "the Fifties". You'd have to get into some rather large sentances if you wanted to use {lo}. > > Used before a singular noun indicating that the noun is generic: The wolf > > is an endangered species. > > No, that's {lo}. {loi labno cu [cease typeof danger-facer]} is more appropriate, I think. {lo'e labno cu [cease typeof danger-facer]} - when you want to imply that the typical wolf might not breed, and his line will die out. > > Used before an adjective extending it to signify a class and giving it the > > function of a noun: the rich; the dead; the homeless. > > No, that's {lo}. "the rich are destroying this country" - {loi ricfu}, "the dead fill the afterlife-place" - {loi morsi}. > > Used before an absolute adjective: the best we can offer. > > That's {lo}. Why not le? What's the gismu for best? x2 of {[best typeof] friti}. > > Used before a present participle, signifying the action in the abstract: > > the weaving of rugs. > > That's {lo nu}. Why not le? > > Used before a noun with the force of per: cherries at $1.50 the box. > > No, that needs some other construction. Yeah. It's also very interesting, in that it's a nounish relationship. Kinda like jdima, but the relationship would be: [thing] is priced at [price] for [quantity] Looks like English is making some progress. > So {le} is "used before singular or plural (no difference in Lojban) nouns > and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things: > the baby; the dress I wore." All the other functions that "the" has in English > are left to {lo} or to something else. This relates to the difference between lo, lo'e, and loi, and not the difference between lo and le. 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.