[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: le vinji vs lo vinji
- To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: le vinji vs lo vinji
- From: "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:06:45 -0300
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tAsS+C99PAhXhe8FAVbs1u/6P22knPrtyHtYqoV/tdoEsDmWRLfStdXHIvfvT++bJvJTr3Ba+hGQdEuHFf2OJGavPmHCfkWMHcYGe5edxUijgFhN03dXwZrBo8bl3oDLnoz5/FXXHUQu7OgTT2Dd3WTiY5uyW7vdTsSeXSJj5Ho=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=K7hOaj0qTwKnsKij4/9JJDh+kQ7KkyPzBQO7ekva9VT5B/nN21tjCB2PPdlpFiS31xch70KtqYcx+5POpmq5+ww3jGA0B6bQeQQEMpGAa84NICsBFGkpmxVH1SwrAE4IWuWd35hvDe9T5wg51pOgi3dAr/OwfcplrLasip7WeTI=
- In-reply-to: <2f91285f0708130410g245818a8tc6038a3c7254a822@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <2f91285f0708130410g245818a8tc6038a3c7254a822@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
On 8/13/07, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:
> Suppose a lojbanic child has found in a theme park a ride which looks
> like an airplane but which doesn't really fly. He wants to ride it.
> Now how should he call this object: {le vinji}
Yes, that would be perfectly fine, as he has a particular thing in mind,
right in front of him, and so it is reasonable to use {le} to refer to it.
> as a truthful lojbanist
> who distinguishes things that are mental from things that are actual,
But that would not be the reason to use {le}. If the child wanted to say,
for example, "I like theme parks with airplanes", then the correct choice
would be {lo}, because he would not have any particular airplanes in mind.
> or {lo vinji} as a child who often spends his time in a world of
> fantasy and is likely to be ignorant of such lies supplied by adults?
Using {vinji} for such things is not a lie. A lie is a false statement made
with intent to deceive. If the child asks {tu mo} pointing to the airplane
ride, and the adult says {tu pinji}, they are not lying, they are using the
word {pinji} in a wider sense than its core meaning. If they said {tu karce}
they might be lying, or they might simply be mistaken.
> In other words, will lojbanic children, if any, have to be trained in
> telling {le} from {lo}?
Children don't learn a language by following explicit rules. They just
learn to use it the way they hear others use it. If the people they learn
the language from are using the lo/le distinction consistently, they will
learn to make the distinction. If the adult tries to teach some rule that
they don't follow themselves, the child will almost certainly not follow it
either. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work in general, and almost
certainly never in language acquisition.
> Will the plate next to that toy ride, written
> for children, in a lojbanistan, have to be saying {le vinji} or {lo
> vinji}?
Probably {la vinji}, if that's the name of the ride.
mu'o mi'e xorxes