Re: di'e preti zo nu

[Robin Turner <robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR>]

la xorxes cusku di'e

> la xod presku di'e
>
> >ma rinka le nu do'o na ciska lu lo nu li'u
>
> If I understand correctly, you're asking why don't we write
> {lo nu} instead of {le nu}. I will give you my answer, which
> does not necessarily agree with what others think.
>
> Sometimes I do use {lo nu}, but you're right that {le nu}
> is much more frequent. I don't think this has anything
> to do with {nu} in particular. It reflects the fact that {le}
> is much more frequently used than {lo} in general.
>

True, though maybe not for the reasons below.

>
> As I understand it, {le} is used when the referent has
> been already identified or is readily identifiable by the
> description, whereas {lo} is used for unidentified or
> even unidentifiable referents. Some people get fixated
> on the veridicality issue and forget this other distinction,
> which I consider much more significant in determining
> the choice of article. I think the veridicality property is
> just a consequence of this more basic one of
> identifiability, and rarely helps in deciding which
> article should be used.

While I am reluctant to reopen the notorious le/lo debate, I think we really
need to clarify this point.  The veridical/non-veridical distinction is
semantic, while the known/unknown distinction is pragmatic.  We need to
decide which takes precedence, and unfortunately the book is not terribly
helpful here.

>
> For example, if I say:
>
>         le plise cu cpana le jubme
>         The apple is on the table.
>
> I am giving you valuable information. Presumably you
> already know which apple and which table I'm talking
> about, and if not, you should not have much trouble
> in identifying them. If there are no clues in the context
> about which apple or which table I mean, then I should
> not have used {le}.

This is hard to justify in terms of Lojban semantics as they currently
exist, which enable one to use {le} for anything except for cmene.  I tend
to use {le} as a default article, and {lo} P to mean a member of the set P
(OK, it could be more than one member, but the default is one, I think).  I
suppose this is like Turkish "bir".

> Of course, in all likelihood the apple
> is a real apple and the table is a real table, so the
> veridicality isssue doesn't enter into it.

In this particular example, true.  But not always.

[cut]

> {le nanmu poi na nanmu} is an example of this, but it shouldn't
> be taken as the prototypical use of {le}!

I don't think it was intended as a prototype.  {le plise cu cpana le jubme}
is prototypical, {le nanmu poi na nanmu} is peripheral, and hence more
useful in drawing the boundary between {le} and {lo}, just as the perihperal
cases of ostriches and bats are more useful in drawing the line between
birds and mammals than prototypes such as robins and cows.

> In most cases,
> {le broda cu broda} is actually true. That {le} allows for some
> leeway in this respect does not mean that veridicality is a
> significant issue in the choice of article.

But in the grammar as we have it, the opposite is the case.

>
> Now, in the specific case of {nu}, in most cases we have
> a specific and identifiable event in mind:
>
>         mi gleki le nu do presku le selsnu
>         I am happy that you asked about the subject.
>
> I am happy about a readily identifiable event: your asking
> about this subject. The context makes it clear that it is this
> subject that we're discussing now, and that it is this recent
> event of you asking. If I had used {lo}, I would not be identifying
> which event I mean.
>

Neither, strictly speaking, are you doing so with {le}; it is the context
which identifies, not the article.  As Jorge himself wrote some time back


> Maybe we can even make a properly lojbanic proverb based on
> this and playing with complements and opposites:
>
>     i le zunle cu se pritu
>     i le gapru cu se cnita
>     i le xamgu cu se xlali
>

It is not clear which left-person, high-person and good-person is referred
to, and in fact, since these are Lojbanic proverbs, noparticular referent is
intended.


Perhaps, post-baseline, the best thing to do is scrap {lo} altogether.

co'o mi'e robin.