From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 03 21:07:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 21377 invoked from network); 4 May 2006 03:58:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m33.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 May 2006 03:58:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 May 2006 03:58:27 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbUuM-0005lm-Bn for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 03 May 2006 20:53:42 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbUsn-0005kp-62; Wed, 03 May 2006 20:52:08 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 03 May 2006 20:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbUsL-0005kg-31 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 20:51:37 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0102.google.com ([66.249.82.203]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbUsH-0005kY-JX for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 20:51:36 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id h26so257840wxd for ; Wed, 03 May 2006 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.129.20 with SMTP id b20mr237952wxd; Wed, 03 May 2006 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.97.13 with HTTP; Wed, 3 May 2006 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 21:51:32 -0600 In-Reply-To: <925d17560605031836w12547ba3n87934504df64c309@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> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11369 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "Maxim Katcharov" From: "Maxim Katcharov" Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=QO7y3vMWLsYOKqAmXfw45OQMaJDOJvb4itlaQIRLFWcRV358eQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25785 On 5/3/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/3/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > I suggest that the following are the complete definitions for lo and le: > > > > lo: introduces the referent/entity. > > le: refers to an already introduced referent/entity, as da/de/mi do, > > but with the aid of what I'll call a tag. > > The distinction you are making is one made by the definite > and indefinite articles in English and other languages, Yes, though there seem to be other uses in English. > but this > distinction is made in Lojban (or could be made rather, since it in > not required and is not actually used that much) with {bi'u} and > {bi'unai}. {bi'u} indicates new information, and {bi'unai} already > introduced information. je'e, I now see that CLL lists them as such. > {le} indicates that the referent is something in particular that the > speaker has in mind, but it may be used for introducing it for > the first time. > > > {le cribe cu citka le jbari} = "it (the bear) ate it (the berries)". > > Or "a certain bear (one I know of) ate certain berries (ones I know of)". > > {lo cribe cu citka lo jbari} doesn't indicate that the speaker necessarily > has a certain bear or certain berries in mind (but it doesn't preclude > it either). It just says "bear eat berry" (except in Lojban it's grammatical), > and without context you can't really tell if this is meant as a generic > statement "bears often eat berries" or if you are describing a scene you > are seeing right now, "there's a bear there eating berries", or a > supposition you are making given that you can't find your berries, > "some bears ate the berries", etc. You can always add more words > to clarify if context does not make it clear which one you mean. What > {lo} does do is indicate that you are talking literally of bears and berries, > (whether in particular or in general), and not about something that you > only choose to describe as "bear" even if it isn't one. {le} does allow you > to do that because for {le} the important part is that you have a certain > referent identified and the description is just to help you convey to others > which particular things you are talking about. > > > lo mirli cu fetsi "imagine a deer such that it's female" > > le mirli cu bajra "it (the deer) such that it runs" > > > > The second refers to the mirli introduced in the first. > > In that case {lo bi'u nai mirli} might be better. > > > It is inappropriate to use le unless it is clear within the context of > > the conversation what we're referring to. > > That's probably true, unless you want your audience to know that you > have a particular referent in mind but you don't care if they are not able > to tell which referent it is. It is possible to come up with such contexts. > > > If lo is used twice, even if the referents/entities introduced by both > > lo are similar, there is no indication that they are the same. > > That's true in a sense. In another sense, we can say that they are > the same for all relevant purposes. If bears eat my berries every day, > I might get angry with bears. Individual bears (or berries) play no role > here: {lo cribe ro roi citka lo mi jbari i se mu'i bo mi fengu lo cribe} > "bears are always eating my berries, so I get angry at bears". > In a sense, {lo cribe} is both times the same "thing", in another > sense it need not be. > > > lo ci cribe cu citka le jbari "imagine 3 bears such that they eat berries" > > lo ci cribe cu bajra "imagine 3 bears such that they run" > > > > There is no indication that the 3 bears mentioned first are the three > > bears mentioned second. > > Right. But if that is all the context you provide, I would tend to > imagine the same three bears there, why add more? Of course > the story might then go: {lo bi'u nai ci cribe poi bajra cu penmi > lo bi'u nai ci cribe poi citka le jbari} which makes it clear that > it was not the same bears after all. > > > I would especially like to hear xorxes' response. > > a'o mi pu sidju > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > I am now more definite in my understanding of how lo and le work, but I don't (yet) see their utility. le seems to be simply a specific variant of lo - it's lo, but you imply that if someone asks, you can provide more details on the referant (probably because you've seen it). Additionally, it also has (what I'll call) an abstracter that lets you say something like "(what I'll call)". I would think that this abstractor feature would work better as cmavo that said "something that by my quick definition is X" - perhaps in addition to another cmavo that lets you say "something to do with X", which would let you refer to bear paste by using it + cribe. Perhaps these already exist. 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.