Re: [lojban] Usage of lo and le

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

Generally speaking (I would say always, but there
are arguments for exceptions) {lo broda} is a
primary occurrence (not in the scope of an odd
number of negations, not in the scope of
{da'i}and the like, or in an abstraction clause
-- including {tu'a}, and not in an otherwise
opaque context [there are unfortunately some
left]) does require that brodas exist.  Of
course, given that no modal-like modifications of
bridi are obligatory, you can get by by saying
that some such is implicit.

--- 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 referent/entity has a specific unique
> identity, and does not need
> to exist in reality.
> 
> Examples: (tense and plurality is ignored)
> 
>   {lo mirli} = "conceive/imagine a thing that
> is a deer".
>   {le cribe cu citka le jbari} = "it (the bear)
> ate it (the berries)".
> 
> The current definitions, which I believe to be
> only approximate to how
> lo and le should be used:
> 
>   le: non-veridical descriptor: the one(s)
> described as
>   lo: veridical descriptor: the one(s) that
> really is(are)
> 
> 
> To (hopefully) illustrate the point, three
> examples (ju'a is not
> implied, and no context exists):
> 
> le X after lo X clearly refers to the
> referent/entity introduced by lo:
> 
>   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.
> 
> 
> It is inappropriate to use le unless it is
> clear within the context of
> the conversation what we're referring to.
> 
>   le gerku "it (the dog)"
> 
> If the listener hasn't conceived/imagined
> something that's like a
> gerku, then this will not make sense. (If the
> speaker hasn't conceived
> imagined it, then something is very wrong.) It
> should, however, be
> perfectly acceptable to say:
> 
>   le plini "it (the planet)"
> 
> This is (roughly) because "the planet" needs no
> introduction. (A more
> detailed argument would state that the
> introduction of concepts is
> simply a courtesy to keep people from becoming
> confused, and that it
> may merely be this and convention that keeps us
> from saying, without
> context, "it is the dog, and it bit me". But
> I'd rather not get into
> that.)
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>   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.
> 
> 
> If this is exactly what the current definitions
> of le and lo mean,
> then that's good, but the wording should
> definitely be changed,
> because it doesn't explain a damned thing
> regarding the above.
> 
> If I've misunderstood the current definitions,
> if you believe that the
> current definitions work better than the ones
> I've suggested, if you
> believe that the ones I've suggested aren't
> complete, or if you have
> any other comment, then please enlighten me.
> 
> I would especially like to hear xorxes'
> response.
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to
> http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to
> secretary@lojban.org for help.
> 
>