Message-ID: <20030728021451.63993.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: What does la'e mean?
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <oprsxqd0knw3ngr4@smtp.hotpop.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 2025


la iuvál cusku di'e

> 1) Operating on a name, la'e transforms it into the/a referent of that 
> name, e.g. {mi tcidu la'e zoi gy. The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul .gy.}.

It would be more proper to say {mi tcidu la'o gy. The Long Dark Tea-Time 
of the soul gy}.

> This usage maintains {da cmene la'e da} for all {da}.

{la'e lu le gerku li'u} is the referent of "le gerku",
i.e. the dog, it is not something named "the dog".

> It is also consistent with the definition of la'e in the cmavo list, namely 
> "the referent of (indirect pointer); uses the referent of a sumti as the 
> desired sumti".
> 
> 2) Operating on an utterance, la'e transforms it into the/a meaning of that 
> utterance. From what Iv'e seen, it appears that la'e in la'edi'u is always 
> understood to have that meaning. For example {mi tcidu lo cukta .i la'edi'u 
> xamgu} is understood to mean that my reading of the book is good, not that 
> something named "I read a book" is good, as expected by interpretation no. 
> 1. This usage maintains {la'e da smuni da} for all {da}.

That is the idea. Otherwise, how would we say the "that" of {la'e di'u}?

> I don't see how this usage is consistent with the definition of la'e in the 
> cmavo list, except by an illojbanically blurry understanding of the word 
> "referent".

Lojban tends to distort the meaning of linguistic terms almost invariably.

> How can both these usages be correct? Am I missing something?
> I would guess that only 1 is correct, since I can't see any other way to 
> say {la'eda} that is less wordy than {le se cmene be da}, while 2 appears 
> to be used only in {la'edi'u}, which is just like {lesu'u go'i} (isn't it?) 
> .
> On the other hand, I do see a lot of {la'edi'u}s around.

{la'e di'u} is the basic meaning. There is a proposal just for what
you want being discussed in:
http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=83

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com