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

[Ben Foppa <eatingstaples@gmail.com>]

On Jul 1, 8:44 am, tijlan <jbotij...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

Then I'm still thoroughly confused; 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. 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?

-- 
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.