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

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

On 5/5/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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"?

As opposed to "generic, unspecified". That which {le} indicates and {lo}
doesn't is specificity.

> "the baby" can be illustrated by {lo pa cifnu},

It could be, in the same sense that past tense can be gotten from
context instead of from {pu}. But {le} indicates specificity explicitly.

> "any baby" by {pa lo
> cifnu} (more specifically, by {pa lo ro cifnu}). But then, just {lo
> cinfu} and some context should be enough.

Yes.

> > > 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?

Right. I don't really know how to get quite the same effect. {ba'e} won't
do either. I suppose one has to rely on an explicit predicate:
{jinvi lo du'u la leik cor draiv cu ralju lo jarbu lo ka se xabju kei ca lo
cabna} or something.

> > > 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".

{po'o}, but it goes after the thing it sticks to, so {ti po'o}.

But that's a whole bridi. {po'o} indicates that only the referent(s) of a given
sumti fit in some slot. You can't use {po'o} to indicate that the referent
of a given sumti is unique, which is what "the" supposedly indicates.
(I doubt "the" actually indicates anything of the sort, I suspect it goes
the other way, when the referent is unique, then "the" can be used, but
"the" doesn't really indicate uniqueness.)

> {lo pa} or {le pa} could both work.

I should have said {lo ro pa} actually. In any case, uniqueness does not
seem to be something that one actually needs to indicate very often.

> {lo nobli turni (la uels...)}
> would be in reference to the actual prince of wales.

{be la uels}.

> We know that
> there is only one through context, so {pa} is probably not needed.

Yes, I think that's the case in most of this kind of cases.

> 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...)}.

If the chimp's name was "prince of wales", or if that was a frequent
nickname you use for him, {la} would be better. Otherwise,
I'm not sure I see how it would work for a nonce use. But if you think
the description will be helpful for your audience, yes, why not.
It is perfectly possible to use {le nobli turni be la uels} for the real
Prince of Wales, since it is a particular, specified nobli turni be
la uels, and that would be the first interpretation that comes to mind
in the absence of context to the contrary.

> > > 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.)

I suppose you could too, yes. But for "the south" I'd go with {lo snanu}.
since it's not about some specific southern thing. And I wouldn't use {le}
for something like "the weather has been very warm lately".

> > > 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}?

Yes, I think it can, but plain {lo} will often do just as well.

> "an infection of the hand" would be better expressed as x3 of {xance
> bilma}.

Probably yes, but if you are asked to expand the tanru, {le xance} will
not work for "an infection of the hand" in general.

> > > 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".

{lo} is always a good substitute for {loi}. If {loi} did not exist, I wouldn't
miss it.

> > > 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}.

{la fiftis} is awful for "los años cincuenta" = "the Fifties".
I might go with something like {lo/le mumco'e dekna'a},
"the five-something decade".

> > > 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.

I would go with plain {lo}. I avoid {lo'e} even more than {loi}.
In any case, it's not {le}.

> > > 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}.

Again, I would prefer {lo}.

> > > 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}.

No gismu, but there's the lujvo {xagrai}.

In some cases {le} might work there, but not in general. For example
"we always try to bring the best we can offer". It's not about a particular,
specified thing.

> > > Used before a present participle, signifying the action in the abstract:
> > > the weaving of rugs.
> >
> > That's {lo nu}.
>
> Why not le?

Again, in some particular context {le} might work for that, but not in general.
For instance "they specialize in the weaving of rugs". It is not something said
about a particular event of weaving.

> > > 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.

One could say {lo tanxe be lo jbari cu rupnu li pa pi mu no}, "a box of berries
is at $1.50".

mu'o mi'e xorxes