On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, so let me check my understanding is right here. Lojban's not quite as > strict as I thought it was. :) > > "lo" means a/any/some/all of a thing, which is specified in a more objective > fashion, although not an absolutely objective one. Thus, I could describe > the Supermodel Of The Week as "lo melbi ninmu" even though beauty isn't > objective, and even if I personally _don't_ consider her beautiful, because > that's a generally accepted description for her. > > "le" means "one particular thing which I'm thinking of, and which is > specified in a subjective fashion". (It must necessarily be specified in a > subjective fashion because by using le at all I'm asking you to figure out > which particular one I'm specifying, if I wanted to be completely specific > I'd have to use a relative clause I guess.) So if I am, say, the one person > on earth who finds Nora Random to be beautiful, I can refer to her as "le > melbi ninmu" if I want to. However, if I refer to the Supermodel Of The > Week as "le melbi ninmu", it doesn't necessarily mean I find her attractive, > because I could just be using the objective description in le, which I am > not debarred from doing. > > So if I meet you, and you are out walking your dog, but I also know that you > have another dog who is at home in your yard; nonetheless, if I say "le do > gerku", you may take it to mean the dog you are walking. The same words > could refer to the dog back in your yard, but "le" necessarily asks for your > common sense in interpreting it. > > Is this about right? > > Mark
Basically, yes. Language always relies on the common sense of the listener to fill in blanks. Not just the word "le", but all language. We have a proverb among Lojban enthusiasts: "Infinite precision requires infinite verbosity." -Eppcott
