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

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

On 5/5/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > So we have lo, which could mean any of the
> > following:
> > lo'e - the typical
> > le - not the typical, but some actual concrete
> > (need not be existent)
>
> Not "mean" exactly, only that {lo} is permissible
> even when these others are.
> > {lo cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bear eat berry
>
> That is, whenever there is a relation claimed
> between a/some bear(s) and a/some berry(ies),
> {lo} is appropriate.
>
> > {lo'e cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bears eat
> > berries (the typical bear
> > eats berries)
>
> Or even (and logically somewhat clearer) "Bears
> typically eat berries" (Lojban doesn't have
> "typically" -- nor "generally" nor "specifically"
>   nor dozens of other adverbs of this sort -- in
> a truly useful form (as modals, probably).  In
> many cases it does not even have predicates to
> use (inappropriately) to form tanru. (You can
> sorta do generality and specificity with {su'a},
> but against some apparent intentions of the
> creators.)
>
> > {le cribe cu citka lo jbari} - a bear ate
> > berries (or maybe I think
> > that bears will come and eat berries, whatever)
>
> I would probably say "The bear eat berry" to make
> (in a different way, alas) the point that {le}
> makes.
>
> > ...yes? Confusing.
>
> Well, it takes some getting used to (mainly {le})
> and enough people have enough questions still to
> make a bit more (or better) discussion seem a
> good idea.

What is the definite distinction between {le} and {lo}? This is a
question to anyone. I'm not looking for various examples that
illustrate one aspect of this distinction, I want something simple,
complete, and easy to apply. I understand that this distinction may be
used for many complex and amazing things, but this doesn't mean that
it has to be some complex morass to start with.

Non-veridicity need not be included in this definition, because it is
secondary to and relies on whatever the distinction is.

I'm going to suggest another distinction, based directly on the listed
definitions:

le non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as ...
lo veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are) ...

{le crino} - some specific thing that (by my definition) is a bear.
{lo crino} - some specific thing that (by actual definition) is a bear.

There is nothing more to it. {lo} uses a definite definition, {le}
allows for the potential errors in your definition. {lo} does not
facilitate the assertion of some truth, it is not a super-type of
anything. It does not refer to something more than "specific". {le}
does not refer to things that you have "in mind" (things that you've
encountered, or whatever) or anything like that. It has nothing to do
with "the" and "a".

The single and complete distinction between {le} and {lo} is that {lo}
uses the actual definition, and {le} uses your definition.

This lines up _very_ well with "typical" (typical by actual
definitions) and "stereotypical" (typical by my definitions).