[lojban-beginners] Re: Why not a new LfB text?

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 10/17/07, Matt Arnold <matt.mattarn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The original difference between {lo} and {le} is that
> one of them is veridical ("that which really is") and the other one
> isn't ("that which I describe as, but I'm not committed to the truth
> of that description"). I have always found it to be loaded with a vast
> epistemological burden.
>
> The new difference between {lo} and {le} in xorlo is that {lo cribe}
> is generic bears in general, and {le cribe} is a specific bear you
> have in mind. Carry that forward to the distinction between {lei} and
> {loi}, {le'i} and {lo'i}, etc.

It's interesting that many people seem to think that's the difference
between gadri as described in CLL and xorlo, but it isn't quite that.
CLL says:

"The specific purpose of ``le'' is twofold. First, it indicates that
the speaker
has one or more specific markets in mind (whether or not the listener knows
which ones they are). Second, it also indicates that the speaker is merely
describing the things he or she has in mind as markets, without being
committed to the truth of that description."

"The second descriptor dealt with in this section is ``lo''. Unlike
``le'', ``lo''
is nonspecific:"

"The effect of using ``lo'' in Example 2.4 is to refer generally to one or
more markets, without being specific about which. Unlike ``le zarci'',
``lo zarci'' must refer to something which actually is a market (that is,
which can appear in the x1 place of a truthful bridi whose selbri is
``zarci'')."

So what you call "the new difference between {lo} and {le} in xorlo" is not
new at all, it's already there in CLL and has always been in the language,
inherited from Loglan.

And in xorlo too, the thing referred to with {le broda} need not be something
that necessarily fits the x1 of broda, while that described with {lo broda} has
to be something that will fit the x1 of broda. xorlo eschews the nonsense
that {lo} somehow requires existence in the real world, as if {lo xanri} or
{lo crida} or {lo na zasti} were somehow contradiction in terms, as if you
could not speak non-specifically about imaginary stuff. {lo crida} has to be
used to talk about gnomes, not about a table that I find convenient to
describe as a gnome. That's what veridicality means, it's not a claim of
existence. As far as veridicality goes, xorlo simply clarifies that "really is"
does not mean "really exists in the real world".

The real difference is actually more subtle and has to do with default
quantifiers: xorlo has none. It's not even possible to explain the difference
without using {lo broda} in a sentence, because outer quantifiers only make
sense in the context of a sentence. They don't mean much by themselves
in an isolated sumti.

mu'o mi'e xorxes