On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:39:52AM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>wrote:
> > I guess in 99% of cases {le} denotes real objects endured in time and
> > space.
> >
> If you were to say that in Lojban, would you use "le" for "real objects
> endured in time and space"?
No, that doesn't make any sense. Does it to you?
{.i mi smadi lodu'u sitna lo vi'e tolxanri dacti kei so'a lo nu sitna sepi'o zo le}
Is there a better word for "denote/refer to" than {sitna}?
By the way: I thought I do, but I do not agree. Why not refer directly (with {le}) to
a specific kind of lion, a branch of philosophy, your favorite comic character,
a specific emotion/state of mind...? ba'e pe'i Essentially everything that
is part of your universe of discourse (in this context: everything you can
possibly refer to at a specific moment when talking) can be refered to via {le},
given that your description picks out the element you refer to.
If the referent selection fails, it is inappropriate to say that though.
However, you will have a hard time to build up a situation in which it is
appropriate to refer to something that is {lo su'u prami} via {le}.
v4hn
Attachment:
pgpq4D1JU24YG.pgp
Description: PGP signature