--- In lojban@yahoogroups.com, Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@y...>
wrote:
>
> la xod cusku di'e
>
> > I haven't yet seen a good reason to use le du.
>
> There is no reason not to use it. It has a clear meaning
> determined by the meanings of {le} and {du}. You don't have to
> use it if you don't want to, there usually are alternatives,
> but it is well defined. It is a matter of style which
> alternative you prefer. {du} is the emptiest possible
> description you can get, as it applies to everything.
> {le du} is equivalent to {le su'o da}.
As I think about it, I'm not really sure that's true. That is, it is
true from a formal standpoint, but not necessarily pragmatically. "le
du" is "something which is the same." If I heard that in
conversation, the obvious naive question is "le du be ma?" "ma du ma?"
It is certainly true that anything is the same as something (namely
itself), but doesn't this violate Gricean relevance? The fact that
whatever it is is identical to something/itself may be true, but is
generally not relevant to whatever we're talking about. It's almost
like we're discussing my family, and I suddenly refer to "le ctuca"
without ever mentioning that my brother is a professor.
~mark