[lojban-beginners] Re: Lo and le...(oh*sigh*)

["Matt Arnold" <matt.mattarn@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Mark <mark@antelope.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
> Ok, so let me check my understanding is right here.  Lojban's not quite as
> strict as I thought it was. :)
>
> "lo" means a/any/some/all of a thing, which is specified in a more objective
> fashion, although not an absolutely objective one.  Thus, I could describe
> the Supermodel Of The Week as "lo melbi ninmu" even though beauty isn't
> objective, and even if I personally _don't_ consider her beautiful, because
> that's a generally accepted description for her.
>
> "le" means "one particular thing which I'm thinking of, and which is
> specified in a subjective fashion".  (It must necessarily be specified in a
> subjective fashion because by using le at all I'm asking you to figure out
> which particular one I'm specifying, if I wanted to be completely specific
> I'd have to use a relative clause I guess.)  So if I am, say, the one person
> on earth who finds Nora Random to be beautiful, I can refer to her as "le
> melbi ninmu" if I want to.  However, if I refer to the Supermodel Of The
> Week as "le melbi ninmu", it doesn't necessarily mean I find her attractive,
> because I could just be using the objective description in le, which I am
> not debarred from doing.
>
> So if I meet you, and you are out walking your dog, but I also know that you
> have another dog who is at home in your yard; nonetheless, if I say "le do
> gerku", you may take it to mean the dog you are walking.  The same words
> could refer to the dog back in your yard, but "le" necessarily asks for your
> common sense in interpreting it.
>
> Is this about right?
>
> Mark

Basically, yes. Language always relies on the common sense of the
listener to fill in blanks. Not just the word "le", but all language.
We have a proverb among Lojban enthusiasts: "Infinite precision
requires infinite verbosity."

-Eppcott