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

[Ben Foppa <eatingstaples@gmail.com>]

On Jul 2, 7:32 am, tijlan <jbotij...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 July 2011 23:43, Ben Foppa <eatingstap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it would seem that I would tell a
> > story using {le} instead of {lo}, as long as I'm thinking of a
> > persistent instance, and not talking about dogs in a more abstract
> > sense.
>
> That has been the traditional understanding and tendency of {le} in
> the community. Today, however, {lo} is gaining a more generic status
> due to the xorlo proposal. Compare the older and newer versions of
> Alice:
>
>  http://www.lojban.org/texts/translations/alice/alice.pdf
>  http://lojban.org/~rlpowell/alis/alis.html
>
>   la alis co’a tatpi le nu zutse le rirxe korbi re’o le mensi gi’e zukte fi noda
>   la .alis. co'a tatpi lo nu zutse lo rirxe korbi re'o lo mensi gi'e
> zukte fi no da
>
>   i abuboi so’uroi sutra zgana le cukta poi le mensi cu tcidu
>   .i .abu cu so'u roi sutra zgana lo cukta poi my tcidu
>
> The sister etc. are a persistent instance of mensi1 etc. throughout
> the story, and xorlo allows you to refer to such particular entities
> with either {le} or {lo}, the latter being the newer default choice
> when in doubt.
>
> > You seem to be implying that the distinction is more a question
> > of emphasis, that {le} emphasizes the specificity of the dog, and {lo}
> > implies its identity doesn't matter?
>
> That seems to be the case. The role of {lo} as a completely generic
> gadri (which is how it's defined in xorlo) would be to plainly form a
> sumti by taking the x1 of a selbri. No semantic additives. What's to
> be read from {lo mensi} above, for example, is that there is such
> mensi1 that constitutes the truth of the sentence. How particular this
> mensi1 is, may be inferred from the sentence's effective particularity
> itself. {la .alis. co'a tatpi lo nu ...} is a fairly specific
> statement, which becomes the context for its component terms (sumti,
> sumtcita) that would otherwise be understood as more general
> references. {lo mensi} in this sentence thus refers to not "mensi1" in
> general but "mensi1 next to whom Alice has been sitting on a river
> side and doing nothing such that Alice is getting tired". This
> specifying mechanism is mutual between the terms: {lo mensi} is
> understood in terms of {la .alis.}, {lo rirxe}, etc., {lo rirxe} in
> terms of {lo mensi}, {la .alis.}, etc., and so on.
>
> So, if {lo} itself doesn't detail the sumti's identity, it also
> suggests that specificities might be surmised from the context.
>
> mu'o mi'e tijlan

Alright, that.. sort of clears it up. I think I get it well enough to
use it, now, thanks.

-- 
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.