From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu May 04 16:45:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 13459 invoked from network); 4 May 2006 23:45:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 May 2006 23:45:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 May 2006 23:45:17 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbnVJ-000345-Fp for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 04 May 2006 16:45:05 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbnU9-00032q-7b; Thu, 04 May 2006 16:43:58 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 May 2006 16:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbnTh-00032f-Qv for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 16:43:25 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.235]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbnTc-00032T-Vx for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 16:43:25 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i13so493024wra for ; Thu, 04 May 2006 16:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.96.20 with SMTP id t20mr350563wrb; Thu, 04 May 2006 16:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.18 with HTTP; Thu, 4 May 2006 16:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605041643p201da7e1rdc57bb7f1339e9ed@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 20:43:19 -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: <925d17560605031836w12547ba3n87934504df64c309@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605040604s4366e278h5385c63dc7c0aacc@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11378 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: 1:12:0:0 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=71iO290ho7UMs0VXpxTh8aVIr5DT5gIhRyQXUiHKtzKJZwC0Xw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25793 On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > 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"? Yes. (Except for "bearness", because lo cribe has to be something that does cribe, and bearness doesn't.) Because (unless I'm > mistaken) Lojban handles those cases in other ways. Not in all cases, but even if it did, {lo} encompasses them all, in the sense that an untensed selbri encompasses all tenses, or that a sumti not marked for number encompasses plural and singular. {lo cribe} simply does not distinguish between "any bear", "bears in general", "all bears typically", "a certain bear", "certain bears", "some bears", "most bears", etc. {lo} might as well not be there, if it weren't for the purely syntactic need to convert a selbri into a sumti. It adds no semantic content. {lo} is similar to {cu}, nothing but a pure structure word. {le} is more like {ca} or {pu}, it does add something of its own in addition to doing the same structural job of the empty {lo}. > {le cribe cu citka le jbari} suggests that I'm focusing on the unique > thing, to say something about it. Well, it could be several bears too, but your point stands. It is about a certain bear or certain bears in particular that I am saying something about. > {lo cribe cu citka le jbari} suggests that I'm focusing on bears in > general, to say something about them. Among other possibilitties, yes. It's too vague without more context. Just as you have to guess the time this is describing. If I was given that sentence out of context, my interpretation might be "bears ate the berries" (as opposed to dogs or racoons). I would not take it as a general statement describing what bears usually do because they are unlikely to be so related to some particular berries I have in mind. > 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?") Both could use {lo} or {le} in that case. {lo} because it is indeed a girl and that is all that {lo} requires. The more informative {le} is also possible if they are saying something about the particular girl in question. If the bigot wants to make a statement concluding something about girls in general, {le} would not work. > I would like to have what "in mind" means explained. I think {le} indeed serves to preclude the "any" or "in general" interpretation that {lo} does not preclude. 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.