[lojban] Re: le du (was: use of ko'a)

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Jordan:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:41:02PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > > How do you use le du?
> > > > As a specific reference without any identificatory description 
> > > > -- much like English "them".
> > > Could you give an example text in Lojban?
> > le du cu frili
> > -- where "le du" might here refer to the act of giving an example 
> > text in Lojban.
>
> How does {le du} (something like the thing which I describe as being
> equal to some thing(s) (which are obviously itself, because they
> are equal to it...)) differ from {le co'e}?

{co'e} points the hearer to a specific category/property/sense, which,
as with all specific reference, the hearer identifies through glorking.
The gadri or quantifier then applies to this specific property -- & 
any of {su'o co'e}, {ro co'e}, {le co'e} etc. are fully sensical. {le
co'e} refers to a certain specific individual that has a certain 
specific property; the hearer must first identify the property and then
use the identified property as guidance in then identifying the
individual.

In contrast, {le du} refers to a certain specific individual, but 
supplies only the most vacuous of descriptions. The hearer must therefore
identify the referent without the benefit of guidance from a description.

(Incidentally, my unorthodox view of English personal pronouns is that
they mean {ro co'e}, not {le du}.)

> (That is, aside from being more esoteric).

Anything but the most vapid banalities currently seem esoteric, as
would be the case with any language whose speech community is composed
solely of beginners.

--And.