Re: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

["Maxim Katcharov" <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>]

On 5/4/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think of {le} as standing somewhere between {lo} and {la}. With {lo}
> the meaning of the following word is all important and whether or not
> the speaker has any particular referent identified is irrelevant.
> With {la}, having a particular referent identified by the following word
> is all important but the meaning of the word is practically irrelevant.
> With {le}, it is important that the speaker has a referent identified, but
> also the meaning of the word is relevant, since it is that meaning and
> not some arbitrary convention that is used to convey to the audience
> which particular referent the speaker has in mind.

This is a (helpful) rule more than a definition/explanation.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to drop non-veridicality
from the definition of le. You said that it was "a consequence of its
function more than a central feature", and I agree. Specifically, I
think that this feature emerged as a sort of "well, it's ok if the
speaker messes up here, because we can understand regardless".
Whatever the case, I think that it's secondary to the discussion, and
would only confuse it.

The problem might be with the current definition, "...that I have in
mind". This seems to translate to: lo cribe + and I have this bear "in
mind". What does that mean? As stated, this does not mean "something
that has already been introduced into the conversation". So is it that
I've encountered this bear personally? What does it mean to have the
bear "in mind"? Is it opposed to, say, "any bear", or "bears in
general", or "bearness", or "all bears typically"? Because (unless I'm
mistaken) Lojban handles those cases in other ways. Perhaps "in mind"
isn't a very useful definition?

I'll try to roughly guess at what exactly this distinction could be.
The focus is on bears (and not on berries). In "(I see) bears eating
my berries", both may then be used:

{le cribe cu citka le jbari} suggests that I'm focusing on the unique
thing, to say something about it. Perhaps we've seen that the bear is
getting quite fat, and aha! I've caught him eating berries, so now we
know why.

{lo cribe cu citka le jbari} suggests that I'm focusing on bears in
general, to say something about them.

So the distinction then is that le invites the listener to draw
conclusions regarding that specific thing (the bear), and lo regarding
bears in general. Perhaps a better example:

Let's say that a girl runs her car into something. This was witnessed
by the girl's father, and by a bigot. The girls father says "THAT girl
can't drive" (le), the bigot says "that GIRL can't drive" (lo).

Is this an accurate demonstration? (I prepare for the response "no,
both should use 'le', because they have a specific woman in mind" - in
which case I would ask "so le is used when you have actually
_encountered_ the certain thing?")

I've suggested a few distinctions - introduce (lo) vs already
introduced (le) (wrong), le means "encountered" and so suggests that
more can be said about it, and that le invites the listener to draw
conclusions regarding the thing/referant vs lo that invites [...]
regarding, say, bears in general. Are any of these correct?

I would like to have what "in mind" means explained.