Re: di'e preti zo nu

[Robin Turner <robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR>]

la lojbab. cusku di'e

>
> The spirit of the baseline is that we should not make authoritative
> pronouncements anyway.

But it was also the spirit of the baseline that the basics of the language should
be clear.  The articles aren't.  The other mega-debate that appeared on this list
was the {djuno/krici/fatci} conundrum, but that was a lot easier to leave up to
usage (which was what happened in the end anyway) than something as fundamental
as articles.  Maybe I'm labouring the point, but as someone who is frequently
driven crazy trying to explain English articles, I don't want to be in a similar
position with Lojban articles.

> We are trying to transition to a usage-based
> decision process.  So decide what you like; write using that approach, and
> see if people understand.

Fair enough.  But we need to be careful not to then fall into the trap of using
Lojban articles as analogs of natlang articles.

I shall therefore continue using articles as I have been doing, perhaps with a
slight change of emphasis as a result of exchanges with Jorge: (hope the spacing
comes out OK)


          semantic                         pragmatic (default function)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
lo X  |  member(s) of the set X    some X, doesn't matter which
le X  |  something(s) I call X        particular X I have in mind
        |                                        (possibly though not necessarily
known
        |                                        to you)
loi X | member(s) of the set X     some bunch of X's
        | treated as a mass
lei X | mass of that which            bunch of X's I have in mind
        | I call X


I don't use {lo'e} and {le'e} much, so I'll need to consider them more.  The
semantic/pragmatic split should not be taken as absolute; "default function"
simply means "the way (but not the only way) I would use it."

co'o mi'e robin.