From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri May 05 12:56:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 25508 invoked from network); 5 May 2006 19:56:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 May 2006 19:56:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 May 2006 19:56:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc6PZ-0008Hi-4i for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 05 May 2006 12:56:25 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc6OW-0008Et-SY; Fri, 05 May 2006 12:55:21 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 12:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc6O3-0008EG-JU for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 12:54:51 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.236]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc6Nx-0008E5-S3 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 12:54:51 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i34so622935wra for ; Fri, 05 May 2006 12:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.242.2 with SMTP id u2mr741891qbr; Fri, 05 May 2006 12:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.218.2 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2006 12:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:54:43 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060505125724.6757.qmail@web81306.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: <20060505125724.6757.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11397 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=dqq4D66R8H1rVS2cLBgi5j18dswGVYOMBeE_WXqgWrgGl9aPzg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25813 On 5/5/06, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > So we have lo, which could mean any of the > > following: > > lo'e - the typical > > le - not the typical, but some actual concrete > > (need not be existent) > > Not "mean" exactly, only that {lo} is permissible > even when these others are. > > {lo cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bear eat berry > > That is, whenever there is a relation claimed > between a/some bear(s) and a/some berry(ies), > {lo} is appropriate. > > > {lo'e cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bears eat > > berries (the typical bear > > eats berries) > > Or even (and logically somewhat clearer) "Bears > typically eat berries" (Lojban doesn't have > "typically" -- nor "generally" nor "specifically" > nor dozens of other adverbs of this sort -- in > a truly useful form (as modals, probably). In > many cases it does not even have predicates to > use (inappropriately) to form tanru. (You can > sorta do generality and specificity with {su'a}, > but against some apparent intentions of the > creators.) > > > {le cribe cu citka lo jbari} - a bear ate > > berries (or maybe I think > > that bears will come and eat berries, whatever) > > I would probably say "The bear eat berry" to make > (in a different way, alas) the point that {le} > makes. > > > ...yes? Confusing. > > Well, it takes some getting used to (mainly {le}) > and enough people have enough questions still to > make a bit more (or better) discussion seem a > good idea. What is the definite distinction between {le} and {lo}? This is a question to anyone. I'm not looking for various examples that illustrate one aspect of this distinction, I want something simple, complete, and easy to apply. I understand that this distinction may be used for many complex and amazing things, but this doesn't mean that it has to be some complex morass to start with. Non-veridicity need not be included in this definition, because it is secondary to and relies on whatever the distinction is. I'm going to suggest another distinction, based directly on the listed definitions: le non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as ... lo veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are) ... {le crino} - some specific thing that (by my definition) is a bear. {lo crino} - some specific thing that (by actual definition) is a bear. There is nothing more to it. {lo} uses a definite definition, {le} allows for the potential errors in your definition. {lo} does not facilitate the assertion of some truth, it is not a super-type of anything. It does not refer to something more than "specific". {le} does not refer to things that you have "in mind" (things that you've encountered, or whatever) or anything like that. It has nothing to do with "the" and "a". The single and complete distinction between {le} and {lo} is that {lo} uses the actual definition, and {le} uses your definition. This lines up _very_ well with "typical" (typical by actual definitions) and "stereotypical" (typical by my definitions). 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.