[lojban-beginners] the articles "le" and "lo"
Michael Graff
-------------------------
Let me introduce myself briefly: I am a German student (please excuse my
mediocre English) and am interested in mathematical logic and set theory.
While reading some texts about lojban, I've been become more and more
fascinated by the concepts, but: Before I'll spend a lot of work on
learning this language, I want to be convinced that lojban is indeed
thoughtfully designed.
The concern I want to explain in this article is my confusion about the
articles "lo" and "le" - very basic ingredients of lojban, which should
be well defined und clearly comprehensible. I hope you can help me to
unravel the fog which threatens the yet growing flame of interest and
trust in lojban (what a metaphor; I warned you about my English).
I have read the relevant sections in "lojbanLevel0", "Lojban for
Beginners" and "The Complete Lojban Language" and the cmavo-wordlist.
First I want to quote the important passages, before I'm going to
explain the cause of my discomfort.
1) "lojbanLevel0"
1.a) If you wish to describe a sumti, but do not have a specific
instance of the sumti in mind, you can instead refer generically to
something that meets the terms of the description selbri
1.b) indefinite description as a result
1.c) lo tavla [ku] cu klama [vau]
A talker goes (or) Some talkers go
2) "Lojban for Beginners"
2.a) "The logic of lo is pretty complicated, but it basically means
"something which really is," which nine times out of ten is the same as
English a or some. (Translating Lojban grammar into English like this is
a mortal sin — damned under the name of malglico; but even so, this is
the best thing to do with lo at this stage!)"
2.b) lo prenu cu klama expresses the proposition "There exists at least
one person, such that that person goes."
2.c) By contrast, the cannot mean the same thing as lo. In English, the
dog doesn't mean just "something which really is a dog", but more like
"something which really is a dog, and which I already have in mind."
(That's how "A dog came in. A dog was black" and "A dog came in. The dog
was black" are different.)
3) "The Complete Lojban Language"
3.a) "le'' is quite close in meaning to English "the''. It has
particular implications, however, which "the'' does not have.
3.b) The specific purpose of "le'' is twofold. First, it indicates that
the speaker has one or more specific markets in mind (whether or not the
listener knows which ones they are). Second, it also indicates that the
speaker is merely describing the things he or she has in mind as
markets, without being committed to the truth of that description.
3.c) le nanmu cu ninmu
one-or-more-specific-things-which-I-describe as "men'' are women
3.d) [3.c] is not self-contradictory in Lojban, because "le nanmu''
merely means something or other which, for my present purposes, I choose
to describe as a man, whether or not it really is a man.
3.e) Unlike "le'', "lo'' is nonspecific:
3.f) Unlike "le zarci'', "lo zarci'' must refer to something which
actually is a market
3.g) lo nanmu cu ninmu Some man is a woman. Some men are women.
must be false in Lojban, given that there are no objects in the real
world which are both men and women.
3.h) In general, "lo'' refers to whatever individuals meet its description.
4) explanations of the cmavo-wordlist
4.a) le LE the described non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described
as ...
4.b) lo LE the really is veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really
is(are) ...
5) The Lojban-English-Tranlater ( http://www.lojban.org/jboski/ )
translates "le" as "the" and "lo" as "any / some".
Now I want to tell you how I understand these articles in my own words:
* "le P" means: I have one object or several objects in my mind (an/some
object(s) of current observation, an accurate memory, an imagination or
an idea) which I try to describe for you. Result of my effort: x1 of P
describes it / them fairly well, but I might be mistaken. More
precisely: There are x_1, x_2, ..., x_i so that P x_1, ..., x_i is true
AND x1 is the something which I have in my mind and which I want to
explain to you AND the bridi in which the sumti "le P" is used is true
(or should be true in order to please me, if the bridi is an command) if
x_1 is used as the sumti at the denoted place; but I might be wrong
(because I'm stupid or deluded).
* "lo P" means: There exists such objects x_1, x_2, ... , x_i so that
the predicate P x_1, x_2, ..., x_i is true AND the bridi in which the
sumti "lo P" is used is true (or should be true in order to..., if the
bridi is an command) if x_1 is used as the sumti at the denoted place.
Example: "lo prenu cu pensi" means that there are x_1, x_2 so that x1 is
a person who thinks/considers/cogitates/reasons/is pensive
about/reflects upon subject/concept x2 (which is the only certain truth
according to Descartes).
What puzzles me are these correspondences:
definite <-> described as
indefinite <-> really is
I know that texts cannot be translated word for word. For example there
is no single German word which matches the English noun "gasp", which
means a quite specifically caused breath (vice versa-example: the German
word "Zeitgeist"). Even words which seem to be synonymous often turn out
to bear slightly different meanings (under certain circumstances). So I
am aware that these correspondences are no equalities, but even the
pretended similarities are odd for me. In 1.b, 1.c, 3.e and 2.a ("nine
times out of ten is the same as English a or some") the authors assert
that the meanings of "lo" and of "a", "some" are very close.
Example 3.c indicates that "le" is used for describing the appearence
and the impression of something; the communicating persons perhaps
commonly share(d) the sight of the described something or the involved
thoughts, which might however deceive them. On the contrary "lo" is used
if the speaker is sure that the something "meet[s] its description";
therefore "lo" transports not less information than "le", that is it's
not less specific. By the way it's an interesting question how the
speaker can be absolutely sure that the something "meet[s] its description".
I don't associate "a" or "the" with unequal degrees of certainty. The
only difference is that "the" refers back to something which was
mentioned or observed before. The use of "a" does not implicate that I'm
sure that the communicated something really meets its description.
Conclusion: Either the pretended similarities are exaggerated or I've
missed something.
I'll be glad if somebody helps me and clarifies this matter for a lojban
newbie who is eager to learn.
Thanks in advance.
Michael
PS) My answers might be quite irregular because I'll be working on my
diploma in mathematics. For the curios ones: I shall prove that a
certain theorem cannot be derived from the established axioms of set
theory, presumed that these axioms are not contradictory - really
mind-boggling und wondrous stuff.
Yanis Batura
On 12.08.2006, 5:52, Hal Fulton wrote:
> Michael Graff wrote:
>> What puzzles me are these correspondences:
>> definite <-> described as
>> indefinite <-> really is
> That says in a nutshell something that has bothered
> me subconsciously for a long time.
> I don't think the people who answered you addressed
> this specifically either (unless I overlooked it).
> On top of that, I have never seen the need for the
> distinction between "described as" and "really is."
> Sometimes I may use metaphors or something; but in
> general, when I "describe something as" a foobar,
> I basically mean it "really is" a foobar.
{lo} is used by the speaker when he believes or wants to show that he believes that there is a true correspondence between the words he uses and their normative meaning, so that just any speaker of Lojban, who's just entered the context, will understand them as the person he's addressing his words to.
{le} is used by the speaker when he knows that the words he uses to describe something may be understood not in the way he intended them to be understood, by a Lojban speaker who's out of context (I mean who doesn't know the context of the conversation). {le} says: "Look! The following selbri isn't what you may think of if I were {lo}! You may need a bit of context to resolve what the following denotes or referres to".
In English, there are "a" and "the", which very often mean pretty much the same (but not always! for example, "water" which "really is water" is used without "a", and "the Sun", which "really is a Sun", is used with "the").
In Russian, there are no analogues of {lo}/{le} and "a"/"the", i. e. Russians are very close to Hal Fulton's way of thinking of things. That leads me to a conclusion that if Russians were the creators of Lojban, there wouldn't have been two different gadri like {lo} and {le}.
mi'e .ianis.
Jorge Llambías
> Hello Lojban enthusiasts!
coi fi'i
> Before I'll spend a lot of work on
> learning this language, I want to be convinced that lojban is indeed
> thoughtfully designed.
Lojban is pretty well designed, but if you expect perfection, you are
bound to be disappointed. The good news is that whatever blemishes
it has can mostly be safely ignored. (Of course every one has different
ideas about what constitutes a blemish.)
> The concern I want to explain in this article is my confusion about the
> articles "lo" and "le" - very basic ingredients of lojban, which should
> be well defined und clearly comprehensible. I hope you can help me to
> unravel the fog which threatens the yet growing flame of interest and
> trust in lojban (what a metaphor; I warned you about my English).
My advice: use {lo} and forget about {le} until you are quite comfortable
with {lo}. Many languages, such as Russian or Chinese, don't have any
articles at all. Understanding how {lo} works will probably be easiest for
speakers of those languages, because they won't be confused by
preconceptions from the use of articles in their native language. Russian
does have grammatical number though, so maybe the use of {lo} will be
easiest for Chinese speakers (I don't speak Russian or Chinese, so there
might be some other difficulties involved that I'm not considering.)
Anything you want to say should be sayable with {lo} only. {le} is just
a convenient shortcut for later, when you find that using {lo} means you
need to add too many restrictions, so you can say {le dacti} instead
of {lo dacti poi mi ca ca'o pensi ke'a zi'e poi mi jinvi lo du'u do ka'e
smadi lo du'u ke'a du ma kau zi'e poi ...} or whatever.
> * "lo P" means: There exists such objects x_1, x_2, ... , x_i so that
> the predicate P x_1, x_2, ..., x_i is true AND the bridi in which the
> sumti "lo P" is used is true (or should be true in order to..., if the
> bridi is an command) if x_1 is used as the sumti at the denoted place.
That may work, as long as you are not led astray by the "there exists..."
The "really is" of {lo} has nothing to do with existence in the real world,
{lo xanri} for example refers to imaginary things. If you mean "there exists
in the universe of discourse such objects..." then there's no problem.
Maybe that's all you meant, but sometimes people get confused by the
"really is" into thinking {lo broda} comes with a {lo broda cu zasti} claim
embedded, which of course it does not.
> Example: "lo prenu cu pensi" means that there are x_1, x_2 so that x1 is
> a person who thinks/considers/cogitates/reasons/is pensive
> about/reflects upon subject/concept x2 (which is the only certain truth
> according to Descartes).
Without further context, I'd translate {lo prenu cu pensi} into English
as "people think".
(Descartes was certain that he thought, but was he certain that he was
a person, that there were other people, that other people thought? If
so, then maybe there were more truths than one about which he was
certain.)
> I'll be glad if somebody helps me and clarifies this matter for a lojban
> newbie who is eager to learn.
I hope my comments were of some help.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Dmitry
> Michael Graff wrote:
>
>> definite <-> described as
>> indefinite <-> really is
>
> me subconsciously for a long time.
>
> I don't think the people who answered you addressed
> this specifically either (unless I overlooked it).
>
> On top of that, I have never seen the need for the
> distinction between "described as" and "really is."
>
> Sometimes I may use metaphors or something; but in
> general, when I "describe something as" a foobar,
> I basically mean it "really is" a foobar.
le/lo distinction, so it is how I understand things. Also, forgive me
unnaturalness of examples).[]
#1) _Rats_ are little creatures, it helps them to inhabit almost every
building.
#2) Something felt loudly on a floor and _rat_ ran under the table.
In #1, I am not having in mind neither specific rat, not set of rat, I
am just stating some property (smallness) of thing that is really rat.
The main difference to example #2 is that I have something in mind, and
trying to _describe_ to listener it. (In this simple case humble author
decided that description "rat" is enough).
Of course, most probably that rat in #2 is really a rat (because author,
probably wishes the readers to understand him). But it is not a point.
PS Eww... I hope, my weak understanding, multiplied with bad knowledge
of English will not confuse you more ^_^
Hal Fulton
> What puzzles me are these correspondences:
> definite <-> described as
> indefinite <-> really is
That says in a nutshell something that has bothered
me subconsciously for a long time.
I don't think the people who answered you addressed
this specifically either (unless I overlooked it).
On top of that, I have never seen the need for the
distinction between "described as" and "really is."
Sometimes I may use metaphors or something; but in
general, when I "describe something as" a foobar,
I basically mean it "really is" a foobar.
Hal