le/lo [simple, controversial]

["Robert J. Chassell" <bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU>]

   > could someone please tell me the difference between {le} and {lo}?

Jorge says:

   The difference between {le} and {lo}, as I understand it, is this:

   le broda = each of the broda that I'm talking about.
   lo broda = at least one of all the broda that there are.

   Using {le broda} means that you assume that your audience knows or
   can figure out which one(s) you mean. Using {lo broda} means that
   you are not giving any indication as to which of all broda satisfies
   the relationship in question, you are only saying that there is at
   least one of them that does.

   (Others view it somewhat differently, giving more importance to
   veridicality.)

Please note that Jorge's phrase "somewhat differently" is most
diplomatically discrete.  The issue is full of controversy.

Some of us feel strongly that the designate/veridical distinction is
salient and interesting; and that this distinction brings in a second
issue, namely the extent of the universe covered in a conversation.

Here are the definitions from the cmavo list of 06/01/93:

    le  LE    the described
                non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as ...

    lo  LE    the really is
                      veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are) ...

First, let me repeat what is not controversial and is agreed on by
all: namely that `le' refers to what the speaker has in mind and is
describing it as, even though that thing may not actually be what is
described.  For example:

    le mlatu cu cpana le tubme
    That which I designate as a cat is atop that which I designate
    as a table.

Perhaps the entity on the table is a stuffed toy -- not a real cat.
So long as I designate it as a cat, and you understand, all is well.
The {mlatu} part of {le mlatu} is supposed to hint at what I am
talking about; but I am just making a designation.  I am not making
any claim of what it `really is'.

Now {lo}:

    lo mlatu cu cpana lo tubme
    One or more of those entities that really are cats
    is atop one or more of those entities that really are tables.

To my mind, there are two important parts of this utterance; the first
is that I am claiming the cat and the table `really are'.  The second,
which I will get to later, concerns the implicit size of the universe
of discourse.

Veridicality requires that there exist a joint mechanism for you and
me and anyone else in the conversation to determine what `really is' a
cat and what `really is' a table.

The utterance is false unless (a) there is what is really a cat on the
table, (b) there is what is really a table on which the cat lies, and
(c) the cat is atop the table.

Of course there are many mechanisms by which one determines what
`really is'.

The most believable by a lone individual is indicated by the
evidential {se'o}:

        se'o    I know by internal experience                   [senva]

For example:

    se'o lo mlatu cu cpana lo tubme
    I have a vision, a cat is on a table!

If I am talking to myself and I believe my vision, then I will take
this utterance as veridical.  If you take as truth what I claim as
knowing by internal experience, you, too, will take this as veridical.

In our culture (and I believe in most cultures), the most common
mechanism for determining whether something is true is indiciated by
{ka'u}:

        ka'u    I know by cultural means                        [kulnu]

For example:

    ka'u na ku lo mlatu cu cpana lo tubme
    .i le mlatu se kelci

    I know by cultural means that it is false that what is really a cat
    is on the table.    That which I designate as a cat is a toy.

We learn what is a `real' cat or dog or car or boat when very young,
as part of our learning the meanings of words.

Science is way of determining veridicality that is most potent for a
group of people.  Science is a clever `truth-evaluation' technique
that combines several mechanisms.  But the actual practice of `that
which really is science' is fairly rare.  Even in a science-based
culture, most of what is called scientific knowledge is learned from
school teachers or newsreporters in a manner that lacks veridicality
testing.

(Incidentally, Lojban lacks a gismu for science; the closest gismu,
{saske}, applies to "usually-coherent knowledge
garnered/gathered/assembled by a consistent methodology".)

The second important part of an utterance with {lo} concerns the size
of the universe relevant to the discussion.  Jorge says:

    Using {lo broda} means that you are not giving any indication as
    to which of all broda satisfies the relationship in question, you
    are only saying that there is at least one of them that does.

This means that if there is a real cat and a toy cat in the room, and
the real cat is on the table, you don't know whether I am talking
about that real cat when I say:

    ka'u na ku lo mlatu cu cpana lo tubme
    .i le mlatu se kelci

since I might be talking about one or more cats a thousand miles away.
As Jorge says, "you are not giving any indication as to which of all
broda satisfies the relationship in question".  Indeed, were I to use
Jorge's defintion, I know by observation, that I could never say that
utterance truthfully.

There are reasons for Jorge's definition, but I don't appreciate them
at all.

I figure the range of what is relevant to a conversation is or should
be defined in that conversation.  All conversations should be
permitted to have a stated or implicit temporal and spatial tense,
which restricts reference.  (Often, these are {va vi'u}, a medium
distance throughout a volume centered on the speaker, and {ca ze'a
ca}, an interval starting a medium time interval in the past and
extending a medium time interval in the future of the speaker's
current time.)

In the example of a real cat and a toy, the relevant universe consists
of only those two entities.  In this case, {le mlatu} is likely to
refer to both the entities, unless I am more specific, whereas {lo
mlatu} can refer to only and to exactly one entity, the real cat.
(Hence, it may be mistaken to use the common gloss of {le} as `the'
and {lo} as `a'.)

To my mind, if you do not want to give "any indication as to which of
all broda satisfies the relationship in question", you can do that by
stating that context.

But as I say, usage is highly controversial.

Meanwhile, {le} tends to be overused, {lo} underused, and {lo'e}
hardly used at all.

    Robert J. Chassell               bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu
    25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road     bob@rattlesnake.com
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   (413) 298-4725