Re: [lojban] video about lo & le

[Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:04 PM, maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice video.  But I am unclear about what you say about the veridicality
> distinction situation.  Is that distinction now optional?

I guess I can opine a little more about it, since you're asking.  This
is just my opinion, though, the way I've synthesized the various
opinions and ideas I've heard into my own habit of using the language.

When you say "lo broda" (which means "a/the something"-- "broda" is an
assignable word so it's a standard example), the fact that what you're
talking about is a broda is rather fundamental to what you're saying.
It's just about all that you're saying.  It's possible that you have a
particular broda in mind, but you might not even be thinking of any
particular broda, you might be talking about the whole class of broda.
 For instance if I talk about "lo badna", a/the banana, I might not be
thinking of a particular banana, I might be just thinking about
bananas in general, what the characteristics of a banana tend to be.
So while it might be theoretically possible that you mean something
other than a broda by "lo broda", it's rather odd, since all you're
saying about this supposed non-broda is that it's a broda!  If you're
going to do that you'd better say "pe'a" (metaphorically) or "sa'e
nai" (speaking imprecisely) or something to make it clear you're not
talking about a broda, like you seem to be.

When you say "le broda", there's something in particular you're
talking about.  You're describing something, trying to point out
something to your listener.  It's a little different than the a/the
distinction.  For instance if you're speaking in English, when you
first introduce an object, even if it's a particular object, you're
likely to use "a", and then switch to "the" once the object is
established in the conversation, like "I ate a banana.  The banana was
delicious."  In Lojban if you're talking about a particular banana, it
makes more sense to start right off with "le", like "mi pu citka le
badna .i le badna cu kukte".  The distinction in English articles is
whether the listener is familiar with the object-- that distinction in
Lojban is expressed with "bi'u" (this thing I'm mentioning is new to
this conversation) vs "bi'u nai" (the aforementioned).  The
distinction in the Lojban articles is more from the speaker's
perspective.  Using "le" asserts that you have some particular
referent in mind, not necessarily a distinct physical object but not
just a generic member of a class of things.

So when you say "le broda" you are still describing the thing you're
talking about as being a broda, and it's still probably wise if it's
not actually a broda to say something like "pe'a" or "sa'e nai" (it's
convenient that those modify the thing you've just said, so if you
realize right after you've said a brivla that it's not quite accurate
you've got an opportunity to soften your assertion).  It does make a
little more sense to use "le" imprecisely than it does with "lo",
though.  You're not just talking generically about the class of things
you're describing, you're attempting to come up with a word that fits
the particular thing you have in mind.  So you should try to find the
best description you can, but it's forgivable if the best word you can
come up with isn't quite right.

mi'e .telselkik. mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.