Re: [lojban] Re: {le} and {lo}.

[Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com>]

On 5/19/05, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Opi Lauma <opi_lauma@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 1. le gerku - the dog(s)
> > (one speaks about dog(s) which has/have been defined
> > earlier).

Actually, I believe, (and I could be wrong,) that {le} doesn't have to
refer to something you've defined earlier. It could introduce a new
reference to a definition (a particular group or individual) you have
in your head, but haven't said anything about thus far. So to say "a
man walks into a bar" you could use "le nanmu cu klama lo barja",
without having mentioned anything about this man yet.

> > About {lo}. Is it right that {lo gerku} = {le N
> > gerku}, where N is a number of all {gerku} in the
> > world?
> 
> All of those dogs existing alive at the moment of speaking?
> {lo gerku} does not in general have such a precise meaning.
> It just means "dogs", or "a dog" in a generic way. For
> example to say that the dog is man's best friend you would
> use {lo gerku}: {lo gerku cu xagrai pendo lo remna}.

Now, I believe that what Opi Lauma said would have been more true
before your revised BPFK definition of {lo}, right? But the BPFK has
revised {lo} to be a generic article instead of whatever it was
supposed to be before. So Complete Lojban Language, and Lojban for
Beginners, are both out of date in this respect. (Particularly, I
think the section in LFB on lV, lVi, and lV'i is particularly
confusing and unhelpful, especially now.)

Chris Capel
-- 
"What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it
like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?"
-- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)