[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

["Jorge Llambías" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 5/7/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > ({xu (do) pu viska (lo ro cribe) (ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka)}
> >
> > > In the above, wouldn't you mean {...ro lo cribe...}?
> >
> > You could say that too. In that case you would be emphasizing the
> > distributivity. Something like "I'm asking about bears: did you see
> > each one of them?"
>
> My notion was that your example would imply that you were asking me
> "did you see that all the bears were indeed at the zoo?" (perhaps
> going on to say "No? Well then you don't know if the zoo contains all
> bears, do you?").

It could be taken that way too, but I don't think it has to.

> The point being that your inner ro is not restricted
> by anything (like "the bears that were at the zoo"), while a blank
> inner would leave it up to context. Your blank outer (if it doesn't
> default to ro) implies that you could be asking about some and not all
> of all bears (unrestricted). The intent of my correction was to say
> something like "I'm asking about some type of bears (I'll leave it up
> to context for you to know which): you see each of that group while
> you visited the zoo? (aha, probably that-zoo-dwelling-bears)"

Well, for me {lo ro cribe} simply refers to all bears, (whatever
"all bears" is in the context), and then you say something about
them. What you suggest could also be said more explicitly, for
example:

  xu do pu viska lo nu lo ro cribe cu zvati le dalpanka
  Did you see that all bears were at the zoo?

In any case, inner {ro} for me does not bring any connotations
of the whole universe. Any contextual and unstated restriction for
{lo cribe [poi zvati le dalpanka]} can also apply to
{lo ro cribe [poi zvati le dalpanka]}

> "The typical bear eats berries" is handled (in whatever way) with
> specifically {lo'e}, while "all bears eat berries" is handled
> specifically with {ro lo ro} - this is an aside from the issue, but in
> what case would you need a general term that covers both of these
> without specifying which?

I don't think it's so much a matter of need as one of convenience.
You are not forced to make the distinction if you don't want to.

> > {lo} does not indicate anything more than conversion of a selbri
> > into a sumti. If you want to indicate specificity explicitly, you need
> > {le},
>
> It may be so that lo covers loi/lo'e (and of course ro lo ro), but
> what is this specificity that le is necessary for?

It's probably not necessary. There are many languages that manage
very well without any articles after all. If context or other means are
enough, you can just use {lo}.

> So, what does {lo vi cakla cu kukte} allow that {le vi cakla cu kukte} does not?

{lo vi cakla} could be referring to the kind rather than the particular specimen
I hold in my hand. "This chocolate" in English can be either.

> >     xu do djica lo spisa be le cakla
> >     Do you want a bit of the chocolate?
>
> Same question for this...

I may ask {xu do djica lo spisa be lo cakla} without having any chocolate.
If you say yes, I might then have to go out and buy some. In that case
I can't use {le} because there is no particular chocolate I'm referring to,
I'm talking about chocolate in general.

> >     ko fairgau le cakla le zvati
> >     Distribute the chocolate among those present.
>
> ...and this.

Same here. With {le} there is some particular chocolate I'm asking
you to distribute. With {lo} that might be the case too, but I may just be
asking you to distribute chocolate among them without there being any
around that I know of.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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.