[lojban] Usage of lo and le

["Maxim Katcharov" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

I suggest that the following are the complete definitions for lo and le:

 lo: introduces the referent/entity.
 le: refers to an already introduced referent/entity, as da/de/mi do,
but with the aid of what I'll call a tag.

The referent/entity has a specific unique identity, and does not need
to exist in reality.

Examples: (tense and plurality is ignored)

 {lo mirli} = "conceive/imagine a thing that is a deer".
 {le cribe cu citka le jbari} = "it (the bear) ate it (the berries)".

The current definitions, which I believe to be only approximate to how
lo and le should be used:

 le: non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as
 lo: veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are)


To (hopefully) illustrate the point, three examples (ju'a is not
implied, and no context exists):

le X after lo X clearly refers to the referent/entity introduced by lo:

 lo mirli cu fetsi "imagine a deer such that it's female"
 le mirli cu bajra "it (the deer) such that it runs"

The second refers to the mirli introduced in the first.


It is inappropriate to use le unless it is clear within the context of
the conversation what we're referring to.

 le gerku "it (the dog)"

If the listener hasn't conceived/imagined something that's like a
gerku, then this will not make sense. (If the speaker hasn't conceived
imagined it, then something is very wrong.) It should, however, be
perfectly acceptable to say:

 le plini "it (the planet)"

This is (roughly) because "the planet" needs no introduction. (A more
detailed argument would state that the introduction of concepts is
simply a courtesy to keep people from becoming confused, and that it
may merely be this and convention that keeps us from saying, without
context, "it is the dog, and it bit me". But I'd rather not get into
that.)


If lo is used twice, even if the referents/entities introduced by both
lo are similar, there is no indication that they are the same.

 lo ci cribe cu citka le jbari "imagine 3 bears such that they eat berries"
 lo ci cribe cu bajra "imagine 3 bears such that they run"

There is no indication that the 3 bears mentioned first are the three
bears mentioned second.


If this is exactly what the current definitions of le and lo mean,
then that's good, but the wording should definitely be changed,
because it doesn't explain a damned thing regarding the above.

If I've misunderstood the current definitions, if you believe that the
current definitions work better than the ones I've suggested, if you
believe that the ones I've suggested aren't complete, or if you have
any other comment, then please enlighten me.

I would especially like to hear xorxes' response.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.