Re: la <selbri> (was: gadri )

[cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc]

I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK writes:
> But just a final warning that I don't think we should
> try and put too much reliance on the _descriptive_
> nature of {le}.  If I want to describe something as
> {le ratcu}, even though it isn't really, because I
> can't think of any better word, or for some other reason
> ("the so-called rat" - no that would be {la ratcu}),
> I don't think {le}'s the answer.

I can't resist sticking my oar in...   Greg Bear would be referred to
as la cribe.  That is, when used in a sumti with "la" the usual meaning
of the selbri is disconnected and the sumti refers to something which
has been assigned that word as its name.

I'm not totally sure on this construction, but I think "a so-called
rat" might be rendered as "da poi ratcu .iacu'i".  I restrict "da" to
actually be a rat, except that the speaker's belief in the predicate
relation (being a rat) is indicated to be of zero intensity.  In other
words, the speaker is preparing the listener for a subsequent discovery
that the referent was other than a rat, at which time the speaker will
say "I told you so".

Other <UI> can express other aspects of "so-called"; English and Lojban
don't map 1-1.  I'm not sure how to get "le" into this -- "le ratcu
.iacu'i" probably is right but, like Iain, I have never been able to
get a completely satisfactory definition of what the Lojban "le" and
"lo" actually mean.

Here's a challenge: a person's name is "Hunter of Butterflies".
Translate into Lojban, preserving the essential feature that the
hunting is restricted to butterflies.  In other words, a tanru like
"butterfly hunter" is not sufficient.

		-- jimc