From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri May 05 19:18:20 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 98826 invoked from network); 6 May 2006 02:18:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 May 2006 02:18:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 May 2006 02:18:19 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcCN6-0002SZ-Bs for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:18:16 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcCM9-0002Cp-2g; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:17:20 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 19:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcCLh-0002CX-Aw for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:16:49 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.239]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcCLc-0002CP-Mi for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:16:47 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i34so662224wra for ; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.230.7 with SMTP id h7mr520561qbr; Fri, 05 May 2006 19:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.218.2 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2006 19:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 20:16:43 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060506010903.85676.qmail@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.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: <20060506010903.85676.qmail@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11405 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: 1:0:0:0 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=id9aA-l3ln1ZoRCiRO05SGeNJTi4fJlTd9Of7ru9HsGYwLSe7A X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25821 On 5/5/06, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > > 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"? > > > Well, or "a" or "some" or ... > > > "the baby" can be illustrated by {lo pa cifnu}, > How is this "the baby"? I is just "a single > baby," not any specific one as the clause > requires. (It may, of course, refer to a specific > one, but it does not say so). "The baby" in English never refers to a specific baby. It's not some sort of name. It's just that the context is so strong (as it would be in Lojban) that it's perfectly easy for you to know exactly which single baby is _referanced_. > > > "any baby" by {pa lo > > cifnu} (more specifically, by {pa lo ro > > cifnu}). But then, just {lo > > cinfu} and some context should be enough. > > "Any" is a bit tricky; Keep in mind, though, that I am using my definition. I don't see it as very difficult: {lo ro cifnu} means "all things that are babies" - in the present, the future, perhaps theoretical babies, whatever. {pa lo ro cifnu} means one of these ("one/all" = "any", correct?). {pa lo papa cifnu} would mean a specific baby of 11. {ro lo ro cifnu} would mean all babies. {ro lo pa cifnu} means all of a single baby. > > 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". > > {po'o}is an acceptable kludge (well, > abbreviation) but notice that is a unique thing > to fill a space and we want a unique thing that > satisfies the predicate in the sumti -- the > unique broda in {le/lo broda}. To think deeper on this, I really don't think that English uniqueness expressed by the is actually an assertion of uniqueness. It would basically equate to {lo pa nobli turni be la uels}, where I say that I have only one "in mind". > You can use {le} for a specific neck, but you > don't have to, and for (as in this case) necks in > general ("The neck contains five vertebrae") only > {lo} will do. For "The neck contains five vertebrae" -> "all necks contain five vertebrae", {lo ro} > > > > 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". > > Oh, please don't let's get started on {loi}; that > is a whole different can of worms. Suffice to > say that unless everything in the inductry is > involved to bring about whatever it is, {loi} is > not noncontroversial. I don't think that that aspect of loi is important. Everything is not involved, because we're not referring to things that are the film industry that are actually involved in something, just the mass that is the film industry that you can get involved with. > > {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. > > Well, we are back to the problem with {loi} > again. I suppose this does not mean that each > wold is in danger of extinction, so one range of > {lo} is inapt. On the other hand, it is not all > the wolves together who are in danger, since it > presumably holds as well for subgroups and even > supergroups. What is that is in danger is the > wolf species, and Lojban doesn't have a cute way > of saying that with gadri. Perhaps you're getting at {lu'o ro lo ro labno}, the mass formed from all things that are wolves, as opposed to {loi labno}, which probably means that mass (by context) but not necessarily. > > > > 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}. > > The {loi}s are a bit more plausible here; they > really get together to do this -- and they > certainly don't do it individually ({lo} or > {le}). What of laws that get together to be on my side (laws collectively are on my side), or film industry things that get together for me to join them (I join the collective of things that are the film industry)? > > What's the gismu for best? x2 of {[best typeof] > > friti}. > > Ah, yes; there is that problem,too. Officially > you can't get farther than "the extreme of > goodness," which may or may not work for you. {[it] zmadu [all that are not it] [yummyness]} (in the case of a resteraunt) is the closest that I could come up with. > > > > Used before a present participle, > > signifying the action in the abstract: > > > > the weaving of rugs. > > > > > > That's {lo nu}. > > > > Why not le? > > Because it is the general process not a specific > case; maybe {le} for the weaving of this rug > here. So your {le} is different from your {lo} in the same way that {ti} is different from {tu}? Elaborate? 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.