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:
>
> > 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"?
> >
> Well, or "a" or "some" or ...
>
> > "the baby" can be illustrated by {lo pa cifnu},
> How is this "the baby"? I is just "a single
> baby," not any specific one as the clause
> requires. (It may, of course, refer to a specific
> one, but it does not say so).

"The baby" in English never refers to a specific baby. It's not some
sort of name. It's just that the context is so strong (as it would be
in Lojban) that it's perfectly easy for you to know exactly which
single baby is _referanced_.

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

Keep in mind, though, that I am using my definition. I don't see it as
very difficult:

{lo ro cifnu} means "all things that are babies" - in the present, the
future, perhaps theoretical babies, whatever. {pa lo ro cifnu} means
one of these ("one/all" = "any", correct?). {pa lo papa cifnu} would
mean a specific baby of 11. {ro lo ro cifnu} would mean all babies.
{ro lo pa cifnu} means all of a single baby.

> > 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}is an acceptable kludge (well,
> abbreviation) but notice that is a unique thing
> to fill a space and we want a unique thing that
> satisfies the predicate in the sumti -- the
> unique broda in {le/lo broda}.

To think deeper on this, I really don't think that English uniqueness
expressed by the is actually an assertion of uniqueness. It would
basically equate to {lo pa nobli turni be la uels}, where I say that I
have only one "in mind".

> You can use {le} for a specific neck, but you
> don't have to, and for (as in this case) necks in
> general ("The neck contains five vertebrae") only
> {lo} will do.

For "The neck contains five vertebrae" -> "all necks contain five
vertebrae", {lo ro}

> > > > 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".
>
> Oh, please don't let's get started on {loi}; that
> is a whole different can of worms.  Suffice to
> say that unless everything in the inductry is
> involved to bring about whatever it is, {loi} is
> not noncontroversial.

I don't think that that aspect of loi is important. Everything is not
involved, because we're not referring to things that are the film
industry that are actually involved in something, just the mass that
is the film industry that you can get involved with.

> > {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.
>
> Well, we are back to the problem with {loi}
> again.  I suppose this does not mean that each
> wold is in danger of extinction, so one range of
> {lo} is inapt. On the other hand, it is not all
> the wolves together who are in danger, since it
> presumably holds as well for subgroups and even
> supergroups.  What is that is in danger is the
> wolf species, and Lojban doesn't have a cute way
> of saying that with gadri.

Perhaps you're getting at {lu'o ro lo ro labno}, the mass formed from
all things that are wolves, as opposed to {loi labno}, which probably
means that mass (by context) but not necessarily.

> > > > 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}.
>
> The {loi}s are a bit more plausible here;  they
> really get together to do this -- and they
> certainly don't do it individually ({lo} or
> {le}).

What of laws that get together to be on my side (laws collectively are
on my side), or film industry things that get together for me to join
them (I join the collective of things that are the film industry)?

> > What's the gismu for best? x2 of {[best typeof]
> > friti}.
>
> Ah, yes; there is that problem,too.  Officially
> you can't get farther than "the extreme of
> goodness," which may or may not work for you.

{[it] zmadu [all that are not it] [yummyness]} (in the case of a
resteraunt) is the closest that I could come up with.

> > > > Used before a present participle,
> > signifying the action in the abstract:
> > > > the weaving of rugs.
> > >
> > > That's {lo nu}.
> >
> > Why not le?
>
> Because it is the general process not a specific
> case; maybe {le} for the weaving of this rug
> here.

So your {le} is different from your {lo} in the same way that {ti} is
different from {tu}? Elaborate?