Re: le/lo

[bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM]

   > ... what you refer to as "Basic veridicality" is handled by {lo},
   > and specifically *not* by {le}.  For {le}, veridicality is *not*
   > the measure!

   An arbitrary position,

It is *not* arbitrary.  The word `non-veridical' is from the definition!

Remember, every time you use {le} you are using something that
*by definition* is non-veridical.  You cannot escape that.

If you have issues with specificity, you must revise your way of
saying Lojban to provide the specificity or lack thereof.  That is
partly what this is about.


   There is no reason to prefer your use of articles to the way most
   Lojbanists use them. Essentially, what you have is an idiolect.

Well, you cannot claim, using the current baseline, that {le mlatu},
without further context, really is a cat.  But you have said that you
like to refer to a cat, in the veridical sense, as `a cat'.  Hence, if
you want to follow the baseline, you may need to express yourself
differently than you have in the past.


   > Knowing the specified referent does not tell me the referent is true.

   ? A referent cannot be "true" or "false". It can only either exist or not
   exist.

There is a misunderstanding here.  If I refer to a small dog as an
animal that I am describing as a cat, that animal is not truly a cat.
The question is not whether the referent exists; it is a question of
whether the referent is truly a cat.  Indeed, if I refer to a small
unicorn as a cat, the referent will not exist in the conventional
meanings of exist.

Bear in mind that {le} and {lo} can be described as `operators', like
`sine' and `cosine', to use a mathematical comparison.

{lo} returns as its value not only a pointer to a referent, but also a
statement as to whether that referent `really is at least one of all
of them'.

{le} returns as its value not only a pointer to a referent, but also a
statement as to the one or more specific things the referent can be
`described as'.


As for default assumptions:

   I can flip that argument on its head and turn it against you. Your default
   assumption that "lo" refers to a specific thing ...

But I am *not* claiming that!  You have misunderstood.
I am claiming, as I wrote earlier:

    As John says in Chapter 8.6:

        ... what does ``lo prenu ... '' mean?  Well, the default
        inner quantifier is ``ro'' (meaning ``all''), and the default
        outer quantifier is ``su'o'' (meaning ``at least one'').
        Therefore, we must first take all persons, then choose at least
        one of them.

    In an unconstrained universe of discourse, {lo mlatu} therefore
    means something like:

        at least one of all that really is or are cats

In certain contexts, as I said, {lo} can be translated as `the', and
obviously, in other contexts it cannot.

If in the context of the discussion, there is one real cat, `the' is
appropriate.  If there is more than one real cat, `the' is not
appropriate, since {lo} is better translated as

    one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really-is-or-are

You go on to say:

   Essentially, there are two different, competing ways of interpreting "le"
   and "lo":

   (1) Use a non-veridical descriptor to be veridical by default - I agree
   that that's confusing, but it's also the standard way it seems to be used
   by Lojbanists.

I agree this is a way you are using it.  But the baselines states
specifically that {le} is one of the non-veridicals.  It is a waste of
interesting Lojban not to use the veridical/non-veridical distinction
that Lojban possesses.

   (2) Use a non-specific descriptor to be specific by default - that's your
   usage, and it's just as confusing, except that it's nonstandard.

No, I am *not* suggesting or recommending this.  On the contrary, I
have said numerous times that specificity depends on context.  Nothing
default about it.

Perhaps I have not been sufficiently emphatic; let me repeat what I
said earlier:

    I urge English speakers to use the
    long, somewhat unwieldy glosses rather than the short ones.

        {le}    one-or-more-specific-things-which-I-describe-as

        {lo}    one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really

    Further, I urge people to be alert to context and the geography of the
    universe of discourse; and to specify it when it is not clear, just as
    they do with utterances that include {zo'e}.

You go on to say:

   The real problem is that the le/lo distinction is crude. It forces a
   choice between whether specificity is more important than veridicality,

This may be the crux of the matter.  (And you will note that in this
context {le te kruca} is an appropriate use of {le}!)

The le/lo distinction does *not* force such a choice.  It does force
speaker and listener to be sure of their mutual context, but then, so
do all other forms of communication.

As an experiment, translate each of your uses of {le} with the long
gloss; similarly with {lo}; and pay attention to context.  The
problems of specificity will or will not make themselves felt, as the
case may be.  When they do make themselves felt, you have to use the
other standard Lojban methods for specification, such as expressing
color or number or tense.


   ... but you will inevitably have to ignore one or the other aspects
   of the articles. You ignore specificity, I ignore veridicality.

No.  You will see that does not happen.

For example, Xorxes starts his recent message by saying:

    i le nunsnu be la djef joi la bob

    One or more specific events which I describe as
    a discussion or talk between Geoffrey and Bob

That is proper use of {le} (unless, as I mentioned in my previous
message, you want to say that our form of electronic message writing
`really is' a discussion/talk).

Furthermore, since it does not matter whether we think of this
exchange as one or more than one event, Xorxes does not need to state
the number of events, which is a distinction often conveyed by `a' or
`the' in English.  This utterance is quite different from English,
where you do have to state singular or plural.  But at the same time,
the referent is specific; both you and I know what Xorxes is talking
about.

Indeed, you will notice that Xorxes consistently writes about things
`described as'; he tends to expresses himself metaphorically.
He speaks, for example, of people's ongoing use of {le} and {lo} as
{le cuntu},

    one-or-more-specific-things-which-I-describe-as
    an affair/organized activity involving person(s)

He does not claim that the usage `really is' organized; indeed,by
using {le}, he makes the subtle suggestion that perhaps it is not
really organized; that the usage is not so well thought out.  But he
does not come out and make a big thing about that, but requests we
write in Lojban.  Very clever of him.

--

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