From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri May 05 19:51:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 28841 invoked from network); 6 May 2006 02:51:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34) by m30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 May 2006 02:51:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 May 2006 02:51:18 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcCt2-0007WY-Lr for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:51:16 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcCrQ-0007VL-DH; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:49:39 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 19:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcCqz-0007VC-2t for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:49:09 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.234]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcCqv-0007V4-IF for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:49:08 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i13so725490wra for ; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.113.2 with SMTP id l2mr497317wrc; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.18 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2006 19:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605051949x4e9558c7oa69d3c999bc17680@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 23:49:03 -0300 In-Reply-To: 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> <925d17560605051745m294b69c7m645ccc5cf61d037f@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11406 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@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: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=lRKhM7CxKFCXfXgwPJ28wb4_dLeWpOWl_pyEzb6VVX75FV7kdA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25822 On 5/5/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/5/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > On 5/5/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > On 5/5/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > I don't really know how to get quite the same effect. {ba'e} won't > > do either. I suppose one has to rely on an explicit predicate: > > {jinvi lo du'u la leik cor draiv cu ralju lo jarbu lo ka se xabju kei ca lo > > cabna} or something. > > I guess that it's whatever Lojban structure is used to express the > difference between "the cat ran to the HOUSE", "the cat RAN to the > house", and "the CAT ran to the house", as they are used in English. That's {ba'e}, but I don't think {ba'e} helps for "is THE neighborhood to live in". At least I don't see why emphasizing a gadri in Lojban should have the same effect that an emphatic "the" has in English. (Spanish works just like English in this regard, so it's not something peculiar to English, but still, I don't see why it would be transferred to Lojban.) > > It is perfectly possible to use {le nobli turni be la uels} for the real > > Prince of Wales, since it is a particular, specified nobli turni be > > la uels, and that would be the first interpretation that comes to mind > > in the absence of context to the contrary. > > What's {lo nobli turni be la uels} ? "Noble governor(s) of Wales". If we know Wales only has one such, then we might understand it as "the (current?) noble governor of Wales". > > {lo} is always a good substitute for {loi}. If {loi} did not exist, I wouldn't > > miss it. > > This is perhaps my point. I theorize that the proper intent of {loi} > vs {lo} has been shifted into {lo} vs {le}. {loi} has had a very shifty history indeed, but I don't think along the lines you suggest. In any case, the meaning of {le} has been exceptionally stable among gadri, it still has basically the same meaning that it also has in Loglan. My current understanding of {loi} (I'm not sure I can call it the current consensus, but maybe yes given that pc agrees) is that it simply indicates nondistributivity. {loi ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} "three men (together) carried the piano" vs. {ro lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}, "each of three men carried the piano". {lo}, being semantically empty for me, does not indicate distributivity nor non-distributivity, so it can be used for both cases. > My {loi} is your {lo}, and my {lo} is your {le}. I'm not sure your {loi} is different from my {loi}, I'd need to see more examples. In any case, when my {loi} is correct, my {lo} is also correct, if more vague. My {lo} just doesn't carry any indication about distributivity. > You seem to have no place for your {loi}. I do, but in my experience distributivity seems to be almost always obvious from context, and using {loi} brings other problems with it (like for example you can't apply a distributive and a non-distributive predicate to the same sumti, "the three men were wearing red shirts (each his own) and carried the piano (the three together)", so I simply use {lo/le} unless indicating non-distributivity is really crucial and non-obvious for some reason. > Your definitions: > > le - {le labno} - "the wolf ran away" (specific wolf) + "what I'm calling a" > lo - {lo labno} - "wolves faces extinction" (general wolf) Not always, but it covers it. > lei - ? > loi - ? These both indicate nondistributivity. > le'e - ? > lo'e - ? I don't have a definite opinion. See for some discussion on the problems of the "typicals". mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.