On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:10 AM, .arpis. <
rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In the past, I've found the "How to use xorlo" page misleading at
>>> best, and incorrect at worst. I recall xorxes contradicting it.
>>>
>>> As I understand, the BPFK section on gadri is the most accurate
>>> reference to do with {lo} and {le}:
>>>
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri
>>>
>>> {lo broda} is defined as {zo'e noi ke'a broda}
>>> {le broda} is defined as {zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u broda
>
>
> In this particular case, all three of the sources I quoted agree. In fact,
> every authoritative work on the meaning of Lojban {le} agrees, because the
> meaning of {le} has been exactly the same since the beginning of the
> language, or at the very least since before I joined the community back in
> the 90's. The relatively recent xorlo change only stripped the default
> quantifiers from {le}, it didn't in any way change it's meaning.
>
> To illustrate the above fact, here's what your source says about the meaning
> of {le}:
>
> "le (LE) Specific article. It converts a selbri, selecting its first
> argument, into a sumti. The resulting _expression_ refers specifically to an
> individual or individuals that the speaker has in mind and which the speaker
> describes as fitting the first argument of the selbri."
>
>
> --
> mu'o mi'e .aionys.
>
> .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
>