Very nicely done. thanks. I think the distin= ction here goes back to the question that ran about 'le' in some earlier ti= mes, whether it was 'specific' or 'definite' (two technical terms from ling= uistics, apparently). No one really understood that discussion, as I = recall it, but the point in about the one you make. The only problem = -- in English, not Lojban -- is that it is perfectly correct (and very usef= ul) to start a story with "The boy struggled up the hill." where, of course= , no boy has been mentioned before, but we are assured by this hook that we= will get him very clearly tied down before long. He is familiar but = we just don't know it yet. This is roughly a piece of Lojban in Engli= sh.

From: Jonathan Jone= s <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
S= ent: Tue, October 19, 2010 6:47:58 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] video about lo & le
=

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Stela S= elckiku <selckiku@= gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> My understanding of what lo and le currently mean:
>
> lo =3D a
> le =3D the
>
> Use le when you're talking about a specific thing.

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote= :

> My simplified understanding is:
>
> lo =3D the OR a
> le =3D the
>
> So I pretty much just always use lo

Unfortunately the real version of this chart goes:

lo =3D a OR the
le =3D the OR a

So it's not very helpful. ;)

The distinctions are somewhat similar, but they're also at angles to
each other. The definiteness of something marked with "le" is in the<= br> mind of the speaker, it states that they have a particular referent in
mind. The definiteness of something marked with "the" is in the mind<= br> of the listener, it states that the referent has been established as a
stable one in the conversation.

Suppose in English we are talking about something generic, and we have
no particular member of the class in mind. For instance suppose we're=
talking generically about bananas. I might say "I like it, in
general, when I eat a banana. The banana goes into my mouth, and I chew on the banana, and I taste the banana." The banana has become "the" banana, even though it's a generic banana and not any particular
one. In this case the banana would need to stay in "lo" the entire time in Lojban (if you kept describing it-- it'd more likely become
"by" or something). If you ever switch to "le" the implication has become that there is some particular banana we're talking about.

Conversely, if we're talking about a particular banana in English, we
wouldn't use "the" the first time we introduce it to the conversation.
If you just start off a conversation by saying "I ate the banana" the=
person you're talking to might respond, "wait, what banana are we
talking about here?" By using "the" you're implying that all the
participants in the conversation already know what banana we're
talking about. In Lojban though it does make sense to start a
conversation by saying "mi pu citka le badna", I ate some particular
banana. You can even reinforce the fact that the banana you're
talking about is new to the conversation by saying "mi pu citka le
bi'u badna", I ate a particular banana which I have not yet mentioned
in this conversation.

The distinction in English a/the is very closely captured by the
distinction between "bi'u" and "bi'u nai", but it's not at all the
same distinction as lo/le. Expecting the Lojban articles to perform the new information / old information function of English articles
just because they're in a similar place in the grammar is just
terribly malglico, sorry. :)

I was referring to th= e fact that "the" and "a" are the definite and indefinite articles in Engli= sh, in similar manner to lo and le, and not to, well, basically any of what= you just said. In particular, my use of the word "the" in both this senten= ce and the previous, wherein the "wait, what banana are you talking about?"= problem you mentioned is not occurring.

CLL 13:13:
> The uses of =93bi'u=94 and =93bi'unai=94 correspond to one of the uses= of the English articles
> =93the=94 and =93a/an=94. An English-speaker telling a story may begin= with =93I saw a man who
> ...=94. Later in the story, the same man will be referred to with the = phrase =93the man=94.
> Lojban does not use its articles in the same way: both =93a man=94 and= =93the man=94 would
> be translated =93le nanmu=94, since the speaker has in mind a specific= man. However,
> the first use might be marked =93le bi'u nanmu=94, to indicate that th= is is a new man, not
> mentioned before. Later uses could correspondingly be tagged =93le bi'= unai nanmu=94.

mi'e .telselkik. mu'o

--

You received this message because y= ou are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
mu'o mi'e .= aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.= luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D = )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.