From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 03 17:03:49 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 66972 invoked from network); 4 May 2006 00:03:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 May 2006 00:03:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 May 2006 00:03:48 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbRJU-00029B-R5 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 03 May 2006 17:03:25 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbRIS-00027h-5H; Wed, 03 May 2006 17:02:23 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 03 May 2006 17:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbRI0-0001q1-W1 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 17:01:53 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0102.google.com ([66.249.82.205]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbRHy-0001pr-JS for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 17:01:52 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id h26so233425wxd for ; Wed, 03 May 2006 17:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.109.4 with SMTP id h4mr52645wxc; Wed, 03 May 2006 17:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.97.13 with HTTP; Wed, 3 May 2006 17:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 18:01:49 -0600 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 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11365 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] Usage of lo and le X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=eqjh__KfGnM7eQYXsDbkOauc0QsSv-pwBEV5SWgU3s62pwkd0w X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25781 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 referent/entity has a specific unique identity, and does not need to exist in reality. Examples: (tense and plurality is ignored) {lo mirli} = "conceive/imagine a thing that is a deer". {le cribe cu citka le jbari} = "it (the bear) ate it (the berries)". The current definitions, which I believe to be only approximate to how lo and le should be used: le: non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as lo: veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are) To (hopefully) illustrate the point, three examples (ju'a is not implied, and no context exists): le X after lo X clearly refers to the referent/entity introduced by lo: 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. It is inappropriate to use le unless it is clear within the context of the conversation what we're referring to. le gerku "it (the dog)" If the listener hasn't conceived/imagined something that's like a gerku, then this will not make sense. (If the speaker hasn't conceived imagined it, then something is very wrong.) It should, however, be perfectly acceptable to say: le plini "it (the planet)" This is (roughly) because "the planet" needs no introduction. (A more detailed argument would state that the introduction of concepts is simply a courtesy to keep people from becoming confused, and that it may merely be this and convention that keeps us from saying, without context, "it is the dog, and it bit me". But I'd rather not get into that.) 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. 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. If this is exactly what the current definitions of le and lo mean, then that's good, but the wording should definitely be changed, because it doesn't explain a damned thing regarding the above. If I've misunderstood the current definitions, if you believe that the current definitions work better than the ones I've suggested, if you believe that the ones I've suggested aren't complete, or if you have any other comment, then please enlighten me. I would especially like to hear xorxes' response. 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.