[lojban-beginners] the articles "le" and "lo"

[Michael Graff <m.graff@freenet.de>]

Hello Lojban enthusiasts!
-------------------------

Let me introduce myself briefly: I am a German student (please excuse my 
mediocre English) and am interested in mathematical logic and set theory.
While reading some texts about lojban, I've been become more and more 
fascinated by the concepts, but: Before I'll spend a lot of work on 
learning this language, I want to be convinced that lojban is indeed 
thoughtfully designed.

The concern I want to explain in this article is my confusion about the 
articles "lo" and "le" - very basic ingredients of lojban, which should 
be well defined und clearly comprehensible. I hope you can help me to 
unravel the fog which threatens the yet growing flame of interest and 
trust in lojban (what a metaphor; I warned you about my English).

I have read the relevant sections in "lojbanLevel0", "Lojban for 
Beginners" and "The Complete Lojban Language" and the cmavo-wordlist. 
First I want to quote the important passages, before I'm going to 
explain the cause of my discomfort.

1) "lojbanLevel0"
1.a) If you wish to describe a sumti, but do not have a specific 
instance of the sumti in mind, you can instead refer generically to 
something that meets the terms of the description selbri
1.b) indefinite description as a result
1.c) lo tavla [ku] cu klama [vau]
A talker goes (or) Some talkers go

2) "Lojban for Beginners"
2.a) "The logic of lo is pretty complicated, but it basically means 
"something which really is," which nine times out of ten is the same as 
English a or some. (Translating Lojban grammar into English like this is 
a mortal sin — damned under the name of malglico; but even so, this is 
the best thing to do with lo at this stage!)"
2.b) lo prenu cu klama expresses the proposition "There exists at least 
one person, such that that person goes."
2.c) By contrast, the cannot mean the same thing as lo. In English, the 
dog doesn't mean just "something which really is a dog", but more like 
"something which really is a dog, and which I already have in mind." 
(That's how "A dog came in. A dog was black" and "A dog came in. The dog 
was black" are different.)

3) "The Complete Lojban Language"
3.a) "le'' is quite close in meaning to English "the''. It has 
particular implications, however, which "the'' does not have.
3.b) The specific purpose of "le'' is twofold. First, it indicates that 
the speaker has one or more specific markets in mind (whether or not the 
listener knows which ones they are). Second, it also indicates that the 
speaker is merely describing the things he or she has in mind as 
markets, without being committed to the truth of that description.
3.c) le nanmu cu ninmu
one-or-more-specific-things-which-I-describe as "men'' are women
3.d) [3.c] is not self-contradictory in Lojban, because "le nanmu'' 
merely means something or other which, for my present purposes, I choose 
to describe as a man, whether or not it really is a man.
3.e) Unlike "le'', "lo'' is nonspecific:
3.f) Unlike "le zarci'', "lo zarci'' must refer to something which 
actually is a market
3.g) lo nanmu cu ninmu Some man is a woman. Some men are women.
must be false in Lojban, given that there are no objects in the real 
world which are both men and women.
3.h) In general, "lo'' refers to whatever individuals meet its description.

4) explanations of the cmavo-wordlist
4.a) le LE the described non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described 
as ...
4.b) lo LE the really is veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really 
is(are) ...

5) The Lojban-English-Tranlater ( http://www.lojban.org/jboski/ ) 
translates "le" as "the" and "lo" as "any / some".

Now I want to tell you how I understand these articles in my own words:
* "le P" means: I have one object or several objects in my mind (an/some 
object(s) of current observation, an accurate memory, an imagination or 
an idea) which I try to describe for you. Result of my effort: x1 of P 
describes it / them fairly well, but I might be mistaken. More 
precisely: There are x_1, x_2, ..., x_i so that P x_1, ..., x_i is true 
AND x1 is the something which I have in my mind and which I want to 
explain to you AND the bridi in which the sumti "le P" is used is true 
(or should be true in order to please me, if the bridi is an command) if 
x_1 is used as the sumti at the denoted place; but I might be wrong 
(because I'm stupid or deluded).
* "lo P" means: There exists such objects x_1, x_2, ... , x_i so that 
the predicate P x_1, x_2, ..., x_i is true AND the bridi in which the 
sumti "lo P" is used is true (or should be true in order to..., if the 
bridi is an command) if x_1 is used as the sumti at the denoted place. 
Example: "lo prenu cu pensi" means that there are x_1, x_2 so that x1 is 
a person who thinks/considers/cogitates/reasons/is pensive 
about/reflects upon subject/concept x2 (which is the only certain truth 
according to Descartes).

What puzzles me are these correspondences:
definite <-> described as
indefinite <-> really is
I know that texts cannot be translated word for word. For example there 
is no single German word which matches the English noun "gasp", which 
means a quite specifically caused breath (vice versa-example: the German 
word "Zeitgeist"). Even words which seem to be synonymous often turn out 
to bear slightly different meanings (under certain circumstances). So I 
am aware that these correspondences are no equalities, but even the 
pretended similarities are odd for me. In 1.b, 1.c, 3.e and 2.a ("nine 
times out of ten is the same as English a or some") the authors assert 
that the meanings of "lo" and of "a", "some" are very close.
Example 3.c indicates that "le" is used for describing the appearence 
and the impression of something; the communicating persons perhaps 
commonly share(d) the sight of the described something or the involved 
thoughts, which might however deceive them. On the contrary "lo" is used 
if the speaker is sure that the something "meet[s] its description"; 
therefore "lo" transports not less information than "le", that is it's 
not less specific. By the way it's an interesting question how the 
speaker can be absolutely sure that the something "meet[s] its description".
I don't associate "a" or "the" with unequal degrees of certainty. The 
only difference is that "the" refers back to something which was 
mentioned or observed before. The use of "a" does not implicate that I'm 
sure that the communicated something really meets its description.
Conclusion: Either the pretended similarities are exaggerated or I've 
missed something.
I'll be glad if somebody helps me and clarifies this matter for a lojban 
newbie who is eager to learn.

Thanks in advance.
Michael


PS) My answers might be quite irregular because I'll be working on my 
diploma in mathematics. For the curios ones: I shall prove that a 
certain theorem cannot be derived from the established axioms of set 
theory, presumed that these axioms are not contradictory - really 
mind-boggling und wondrous stuff.