[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le
Sorry, I re-read and understand what you're illustrating (examples of
how le and lo are used, though there's no definite definition that I
was expecting). In my counterexamples, I'll use primarily the
cmavo-list/my definition of "lo".
On 5/5/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
Let's do an experiment. This is the definition of "the" from dictionary.com,
and my comments on where "the" corresponds to {le} and where it does not:
> Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote
> particular, specified persons or things: the baby; the dress I wore.
Yes, that's what {le} is for.
As opposed to what? "any"? "all"?
"the baby" can be illustrated by {lo pa cifnu}, "any baby" by {pa lo
cifnu} (more specifically, by {pa lo ro cifnu}). But then, just {lo
cinfu} and some context should be enough.
> Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group
> or type as the most outstanding or prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive
> to be the neighborhood to live in these days.
No, {le} won't do for that.
Neither would {lo}, correct?
> Used to indicate uniqueness: the Prince of Wales; the moon.
{le} can be used there, but it won't really indicate uniqueness.
{lo pa} is better to indicate that.
Uniqueness can be indicated using po'o, or whichever one it is. {?? ti
nobli turni la uels.}, where ?? is a placeholder for whatever is used
to say "{ti} and only {ti} fits here".
{lo pa} or {le pa} could both work. {lo nobli turni (la uels...)}
would be in reference to the actual prince of wales. We know that
there is only one through context, so {pa} is probably not needed. If
I had a pet chimp, I could happily refer to him as {le nobli turni (la
uels...)}, "the prince of wales has destroyed the curtains yet again".
If I had a pet chimp and I was delusional, and thought that he was the
actual prince of wales, I would refer to him using {lo nobli turni (la
uels...)}.
> Used before nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the
> compass: the weather; a wind from the south.
No, plain {lo} will do.
Why? By the current definition, won't "the weather" be referred to
using {le}? (Which indicates that {le} is used when you've encountered
the thing, that is, when it was directly relevant to your experience.)
> Used as the equivalent of a possessive adjective before names of some
> parts of the body: grab him by the neck; an infection of the hand.
Can be used there, but plain {lo} will do.
Again, if you're talking about a specific neck, don't you mean {le}?
"an infection of the hand" would be better expressed as x3 of {xance
bilma}.
> Used before a noun specifying a field of endeavor: the law; the film industry;
> the stage.
No, plain {lo} is better.
{loi}, if we're talking about laws, stages, or film industries as a
mass. "Join the film industry" = "[you, {ko}] participate in (the mass
of all things that are the film industry)". "The law is on my side" =
"(that which is the mass of all things that are laws) is on my side".
> Used before a proper name, as of a monument or ship: the Alamo; the Titanic.
No, that's {la}.
I agree.
> Used before the plural form of a numeral denoting a specific decade of a
> century or of a life span: rural life in the Thirties.
Doubtful. Plain {lo} would probably do.
{la fiftis.} is I think the most direct translation, given the
capitalization of, say "the Fifties". You'd have to get into some
rather large sentances if you wanted to use {lo}.
> Used before a singular noun indicating that the noun is generic: The wolf
> is an endangered species.
No, that's {lo}.
{loi labno cu [cease typeof danger-facer]} is more appropriate, I think.
{lo'e labno cu [cease typeof danger-facer]} - when you want to imply
that the typical wolf might not breed, and his line will die out.
> Used before an adjective extending it to signify a class and giving it the
> function of a noun: the rich; the dead; the homeless.
No, that's {lo}.
"the rich are destroying this country" - {loi ricfu}, "the dead fill
the afterlife-place" - {loi morsi}.
> Used before an absolute adjective: the best we can offer.
That's {lo}.
Why not le?
What's the gismu for best? x2 of {[best typeof] friti}.
> Used before a present participle, signifying the action in the abstract:
> the weaving of rugs.
That's {lo nu}.
Why not le?
> Used before a noun with the force of per: cherries at $1.50 the box.
No, that needs some other construction.
Yeah. It's also very interesting, in that it's a nounish relationship.
Kinda like jdima, but the relationship would be:
[thing] is priced at [price] for [quantity]
Looks like English is making some progress.
So {le} is "used before singular or plural (no difference in Lojban) nouns
and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things:
the baby; the dress I wore." All the other functions that "the" has in English
are left to {lo} or to something else.
This relates to the difference between lo, lo'e, and loi, and not the
difference between lo and le.