[lojban-beginners] Re: {le} and {lo}

[Ben Foppa <eatingstaples@gmail.com>]

Would I then be correct in saying that {le} implies that, in my mind,
the dog I'm referencing has a separate identity than the "standard"
dog?

On Jun 30, 3:35 am, tijlan <jbotij...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As Pierre and selckiku pointed out, {le} seems most meaningful when
> used to particularize a member of a category against other members of
> the same category. For this aspect, {le} may be expanded like so:
>
>   le gerku = zo'e su'anai noi gerku ( particular DOG )
>
> ({su'anai} is to modify {zo'e} rather than {noi} or {gerku}, because
> what's particular isn't the fact that the referent is a DOG but the
> existence of the referent itself out of other members of DOG.)
>
> As opposed to:
>
>   lo gerku = zo'e noi gerku ( general / particular / ... DOG )
>   lo'e gerku = zo'e su'a noi gerku ( general DOG )
>
> {le fraso} is a su'anai FRENCH-LANGUAGE (likely a dialect), which is
> still a FRENCH-LANGUAGE. If you ate {le badna}, you would have eaten
> {lo badna} of the same instance, because a particular BANANA is still
> a BANANA.
>
> mu'o mi'e tijlan

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.