[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- 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).

> "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; I wouldn't be very
comfortable with any of these translations,
although something in this area must work (it's
part of the "all" "each" problem as well as the
effects of subjunctives and negations in English
and which we don't really know how to handle in
Lojban.
 
> > > Used before a noun, and generally stressed,
> to emphasize one of a group
> > > or type as the most outstanding or
> prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive
> > > to be the neighborhood to live in these
> days.
> >
> > No, {le} won't do for that.
> 
> Neither would {lo}, correct?

Right.
 
> > > Used to indicate uniqueness: the Prince of
> Wales; the moon.
> >
> > {le} can be used there, but it won't really
> indicate uniqueness.
> > {lo pa} is better to indicate that.


Or {le pa} to get both in.
 
> 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}.
 
> {lo pa} or {le pa} could both work. {lo nobli
> turni (la uels...)}
> would be in reference to the actual prince of
> wales. We know that
> there is only one through context, so {pa} is
> probably not needed. If
> I had a pet chimp, I could happily refer to him
> as {le nobli turni (la
> uels...)}, "the prince of wales has destroyed
> the curtains yet again".
> If I had a pet chimp and I was delusional, and
> thought that he was the
> actual prince of wales, I would refer to him
> using {lo nobli turni (la
> uels...)}.

I suppose you could; it would make all those
statements either false or meaningless, but if
you're delusional you have to expect that.

> > > Used before nouns that designate natural
> phenomena or points of the
> > > compass: the weather; a wind from the
> south.
> >
> > No, plain {lo} will do.
> 
> Why? By the current definition, won't "the
> weather" be referred to
> using {le}? (Which indicates that {le} is used
> when you've encountered
> the thing, that is, when it was directly
> relevant to your experience.)

That's not what {le} does although those cases
are often {le}s.  "The weather" is in this case
generic -- "What's the weather like in Toledo?,"
not a specific bit of it.

> > > Used as the equivalent of a possessive
> adjective before names of some
> > > parts of the body: grab him by the neck; an
> infection of the hand.
> >
> > Can be used there, but plain {lo} will do.
> 
> Again, if you're talking about a specific neck,
> don't you mean {le}?
> "an infection of the hand" would be better
> expressed as x3 of {xance
> bilma}.

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.
 
> > > 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. 

> > > Used before a proper name, as of a monument
> or ship: the Alamo; the Titanic.
> >
> > No, that's {la}.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > > Used before the plural form of a numeral
> denoting a specific decade of a
> > > century or of a life span: rural life in
> the Thirties.
> >
> > Doubtful. Plain {lo} would probably do.
> 
> {la fiftis.} is I think the most direct
> translation, given the
> capitalization of, say "the Fifties". You'd
> have to get into some
> rather large sentances if you wanted to use
> {lo}.

And I would say that if I could figure pout how
to say "Fifties" in Lojban as a predicate, I
would use {le}, since I have a very particular
decade (that of the 1900s, say) in mind.

> > > Used before a singular noun indicating that
> the noun is generic: The wolf
> > > is an endangered species.
> >
> > No, that's {lo}.
> 
> {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.
 
> > > 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}).
 
> > > Used before an absolute adjective: the best
> we can offer.
> >
> > That's {lo}.
> 
> Why not le?

Depends on context a lot (doesn't it always?)If
you were to say (malglicoly) that this is the
best we've got, using identity, say.  The {le}
sound right.  But in "He wants the best" it is
{lo} (I have no idea what the best might be).
 
> 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.
 
> > > 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.
 
> > > Used before a noun with the force of per:
> cherries at $1.50 the box.
> >
> > No, that needs some other construction.
> 
> Yeah. It's also very interesting, in that it's
> a nounish relationship.
> Kinda like jdima, but the relationship would
> be:
> [thing] is priced at [price] for [quantity]
> Looks like English is making some progress.
> 
> > So {le} is "used before singular or plural
> (no difference in Lojban) nouns
> > and noun phrases that denote particular,
> specified persons or things:
> > the baby; the dress I wore." All the other
> functions that "the" has in English
> > are left to {lo} or to something else.
> 
> This relates to the difference between lo,
> lo'e, and loi, and not the
> difference between lo and le.

Well, it is the short rule for the difference
between {le} and {lo}: {le} for specifics, {lo}
elsewhere (that it fits at all). The lVi and lV'e
cases involve totally different parameters
(across which the {lo}-{le} distinction cuts in
the lVi case).



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.