Re: di'e preti zo nu

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

la robin. cusku di'e

> 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.

The book was written by someone who thinks that the entire
semantics/pragmatics distinction is pernicious, so expect no help
from me.  However, I personally (not as author of the Book)
think that the specific/non-specific distinction is the most
important one in practice.  Relaxing veridicality is important
so as to preserve specificity: a Lojban sentence cannot be
false solely because a sumti described with "le" fails to meet
its description.
 
> 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).

No, the default is "one or more".


> >         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.

It is the article which tells whether the speaker's intention is
controlling (le) or the facts of the matter are controlling (lo).

A "lo" version of the above example would mean something like
"Some events(s) of your asking about the subject make(s) me happy."

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

Without "lo" or its equivalents "da poi" and indefinite description,
it's hard to make existential statements.  Certainly "lo" is redundant
to the more flexible "da", but it's useful because it conceptually
chunks the notion "some number of".

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)