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

Though it doesn't help with practical problems, the answer to yourlast question is at least clear and (relatively) simple. Loglan. Lojban's ancestor, was built on First Order Predicate Logic, basically Whitehead and Russell with various simplifications and improvements. Thus it contained Definite Description (iota) as the only means of converting formulas to terms "The one and only F". This became {le} in Loglan. But the FOPL definition of iota did not work well for a language; the things we wanted to refer to by their properties were usually not unique, but if an iota description did not pick out a unique object, the whole sentence was false (or nonsense or something unpredictable). Loglan took the case where there was more than one thing with the property in question as not a problem, since it could take that case as referring to a set rather than an individual (Loglan didn't have the details of this worked out, it was taken as an article of faith) and work just fine. For the case where there was no individual satisfying the description, Loglan made the rule that we had intended to pick out some individual but had happened to misdescribe it and the description worked if it was understood to refer to the individual intended. This permission instantly got extended to cover cases where there were things that met the description, hence the present definition of {le}, although for some time it was the only descriptor (well, it and the set version), so used across the board. But that, led to problems in a number of cases: we often did want to insist on thing that really did have the property mentioned, with no possibility of weasling, and we often wanted to refer to rather amorphous bunches of these things, not something we had clearly in mind. Hence, {lo} was born, as the "otherwise" operator. But the history of that particle is for another day.

From: Анатолий Гашев <volishavas@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Please, the best explanation of {le} vs. {lo}

I don't worry just about the case. But I want to know precise distinction between using {le} and {lo}. Yes, I'm Russian, but it doesn't mean anything in the way of Lojban.

From http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri I understood {lo} is anything, and {le} is {lo} that I have in my mind in the moment of speaking. For example,

mi ba terve'u lo karce - cuz right now I don't have in my mind image of my future car I'll want, but
mi ca ca'a ponse le karce

And if you're going to say that using {mi ca ca'a ponse lo karce} is perfectly well, then I might ask why even {le} exists in Lojban.

суббота, 22 июня 2013 г., 3:54:34 UTC+6 пользователь aionys написал:

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Анатолий Гашев <volis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi! If I want to say "I have a car. The car is white.":
(I'm interested only in differences between {le} and {lo}.)
1. with {le}: mi ponse le karce .i le karce cu blabi
2. with {lo}: mi ponse lo karce .i lo karce cu blabi
I think the first choice is better. Am I right?

Let me put it this way: You're not wrong. It's perfectly fine to use {le} instead of {lo}, but I wouldn't myself say it's better to. I also wouldn't say it's worse to.

As long as the thing you're talking about can be the x1 of whatever you're using to describe it (i.e. something you are calling {lo ve klama} must be a means of transportation), {lo} is never wrong, so when in doubt, use {lo}.

пятница, 21 июня 2013 г., 17:26:12 UTC+6 пользователь .arpis. написал:

{le} is what you say when you have a particular thing in mind or when you want to indicate that the thing you're talking about isn't necessarily a {broda}; {lo} is what you say whenever you don't want to indicate the previous fact. Most people use {le} for "the", but I think this is malgli.

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:29 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

mi'a got a request to explain the difference between {lo} and {le} with good examples from English. The person who is asking for that is not satisfied with what is described in BPFK sections of lojban.org. Please help.

--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/grou ps/opt_out.

--
Alex R

--
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+un...@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/ groups/opt_out.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
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.