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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 5/19/05, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes. 

> > > 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 Beginners, are both out of date in this respect.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.)

Right.

mu'o mi'e xorxes