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

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

On 30 June 2011 14:32, Ben Foppa <eatingstaples@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Yes. But that isn't the only thing {le} implies, and that isn't
something which can be implied by only {le}. A sumti described as
{gerku} might have another identity in addition to {lo gerku}
regardless of whether or not its gadri is {le}. If there is {lo gerku
poi pendo mi}, the described object has at least two separate
identities: a dog & a friend.

As to "standard":
A non-standard dog may still be considered a dog. The world's ugliest
dog is {lo gerku}, however abnormal its appearance may be. And we may
refer to it by {le gerku} too, by way of emphasizing the
particular-ness of the creature as an instance of {lo gerku}. You
could say it has a separate identity from standard dogs, but both
parties share the same generic identity as {lo gerku} nevertheless. By
extension, {le gerku} could arguably be used to refer to standard dogs
as well, by way of presenting them as distinct instances of {lo
gerku}, in that they are *standard* and not non-standard dogs (for
which {lo'e} is more conventional).


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.