Re: [lojban] Usage of lo and le

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 5/3/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suggest that the following are the complete definitions for lo and le:
>
>  lo: introduces the referent/entity.
>  le: refers to an already introduced referent/entity, as da/de/mi do,
> but with the aid of what I'll call a tag.

The distinction you are making is one made by the definite
and indefinite articles in English and other languages, but this
distinction is made in Lojban (or could be made rather, since it in
not required and is not actually used that much) with {bi'u} and
{bi'unai}. {bi'u} indicates new information, and {bi'unai} already
introduced information.

{le} indicates that the referent is something in particular that the
speaker has in mind, but it may be used for introducing it for
the first time.

>  {le cribe cu citka le jbari} = "it (the bear) ate it (the berries)".

Or "a certain bear (one I know of) ate certain berries (ones I know of)".

{lo cribe cu citka lo jbari} doesn't indicate that the speaker necessarily
has a certain bear or certain berries in mind (but it doesn't preclude
it either). It just says "bear eat berry" (except in Lojban it's grammatical),
and without context you can't really tell if this is meant as a generic
statement "bears often eat berries" or if you are describing a scene you
are seeing right now, "there's a bear there eating berries", or a
supposition you are making given that you can't find your berries,
"some bears ate the berries", etc. You can always add more words
to clarify if context does not make it clear which one you mean. What
{lo} does do is indicate that you are talking literally of bears and berries,
(whether in particular or in general), and not about something that you
only choose to describe as "bear" even if it isn't one. {le} does allow you
to do that because for {le} the important part is that you have a certain
referent identified and the description is just to help you convey to others
which particular things you are talking about.

>  lo mirli cu fetsi "imagine a deer such that it's female"
>  le mirli cu bajra "it (the deer) such that it runs"
>
> The second refers to the mirli introduced in the first.

In that case {lo bi'u nai mirli} might be better.

> It is inappropriate to use le unless it is clear within the context of
> the conversation what we're referring to.

That's probably true, unless you want your audience to know that you
have a particular referent in mind but you don't care if they are not able
to tell which referent it is. It is possible to come up with such contexts.

> If lo is used twice, even if the referents/entities introduced by both
> lo are similar, there is no indication that they are the same.

That's true in a sense. In another sense, we can say that they are
the same for all relevant purposes. If bears eat my berries every day,
I might get angry with bears. Individual bears (or berries) play no role
here: {lo cribe ro roi citka lo mi jbari i se mu'i bo mi fengu lo cribe}
"bears are always eating my berries, so I get angry at bears".
In a sense, {lo cribe} is both times the same "thing", in another
sense it need not be.

>  lo ci cribe cu citka le jbari "imagine 3 bears such that they eat berries"
>  lo ci cribe cu bajra "imagine 3 bears such that they run"
>
> There is no indication that the 3 bears mentioned first are the three
> bears mentioned second.

Right. But if that is all the context you provide, I would tend to
imagine the same three bears there, why add more? Of course
the story might then go: {lo bi'u nai ci cribe poi bajra cu penmi
lo bi'u nai ci cribe poi citka le jbari} which makes it clear that
it was not the same bears after all.

> I would especially like to hear xorxes' response.

a'o mi pu sidju

mu'o mi'e xorxes