Re: [lojban] Please, the best explanation of {le} vs. {lo}

[selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>]

la .arpis. cu cusku di'e
> Better than the second choice, I'd probably use
> 1. {mi ponse lo karce .i ky blabi} or
> 2. {mi ponse lo karce noi blabi} or even
> 3. {lo karce ge se ponse mi gi blabi}.

Or even:

	(4) mi ponse lo karce .i blabi
	    (sort of literally: "I own Car. Whites.")[1]
	    "I own a car. It is white."

While this is not entirely an example of {le} vs {lo}, it's still a very 
common way to say it, and it shows that even this level of vagueness is 
appropriate. If stating no sumti at all is sufficient, then surely {lo 
karce} is, too.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
[1]: I feel this is how Lojban should be translated into English, as 
it's the only way to convey the vagueness inherent in the Lojban. "Car" 
instead of "a car" or "the car" both of which would arbitrarily favor a 
reading that the Lojban does not force, and "whites" as a verb, because 
{blabi} *is* a verb, as is every Lojban predicate.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.