|
Well, that’s why I said, “my
personal preference” and YMMV (“your mileage may vary”).
If you choose to think about it as having a particular meeting in mind (no
other meeting will do?) and a particular trip, you can certainly use “le”
in all three places. In general, I would tend to say that (unquantified)
“le” can often be used where (unquantified) “lo” can,
but not vice-versa, since things that are “something(s) that really is/are
X” are also usually “the specific thing(s) I’m describing
X, that I have in mind”, but not the other way ‘round. For
example consider, “mi pu viska lo/le cribe sedi’o le/lo ricfoi”
Four possiblities: 1) mi pu viska lo cribe in lo
ricfoi ß ”I saw a bear in a forest” It really
was bear, it really was a forest, but we don’t know where. 2) mi pu viska le cribe in lo ricfoi ß “I saw the bear in
a forest” It may or may not be a bear, but it specifically the thing I
saw, and it was in a real forest, somewhere. 3) mi pu viska lo cribe le ricfoi ß “I saw a bear in
the forest” It definitely a bear that was in a particular forest
(presumably, the listener would know which one I’m talking about.. one
near my home, the one we’re in now, or even a “forest” at
Disneyland) 4) mi pu viska le cribe le ricfoi ß “I saw the bear in
the forest” Specific bear like thing in specific forest-like
thing. In case one, you might be talking
about an encounter you had once on a camping trip as a child. (And it’s
not a specific bear, because there may be others in the forest, but they all
look alike to you). In case two, you saw
something that you took for a bear, while you were camping. In case three, if we were in In case four, at But the point is that sentence four
could easily have been said in all four cases, for although you are narrowing
down the forest and bear to specific cases, the objects in question could still
be real bears and forests. But I couldn’t use sentence one in
case four, because it’s neither a real bear, nor a real forest, and
anyway, you wouldn’t be sure that I was talking about anything having to
do with the whatever bears and/or forests we had just been talking about/visited. (Caveat: As I understand
Robin’s take on xorlo on the tiki page, all those “lo”’s
could be referring to things that aren’t actually bears, as well, a
stance not everyone agrees with.)
--gejyspa ---------- Andrew asked: But if I am drinking quickly for the specific reason of
going to school, aren't I just as specifically going to school in order to meet
the teacher. Therefore shoudn't tezu'e be followed by [lenu]? And
what about [bilga]? I am obligated not just to go generally, but ot make this
specific trip. So maybe [lenu] again? ----- Original Message ---- As far as lenu vs. lonu, I would
say in this case “lenu” after the ki’e” and
“lonu” after tezu’e (and after bilga in the first version),
as my personal prefence. Why? Possibly English bias, but because you are
drinking quickly it for _the specific_
reason of being obligated in _a_
going to school for _a_ meeting
with the teacher. YMMV
--gejyspa From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
[mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On
Behalf Of ANDREW PIEKARSKI .i ca lo
cerni mi [cu] sutra pinxe lo ckafi ki'u lonu mi bilga lenu klama le ckule be fo
le panzi tezu'e lenu penmi le ctuca be ri or the
shorter .i ca lo
cerni mi [cu] sutra pinxe lo ckafi ki'u .ei mi klama le ckule be fo le panzi
tezu'e lenu penmi le ctuca be ri That leaves only the question of lenu and lonu. From
the comments, my impression is that either will do in all cases - but surely we
need some consistency. Your comments on making it xorlo-compatable, please. |