Re: context in Lojban

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la'o gy Bob Chassell gy cusku di'e

> ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk cisku di'e
>     So even if there exists a real box that you do need, but you need neither
>     of the boxes in the "contextual range", then the utterance is false
>     - according to you. I am incredulous that this really is the official
>     line on LO.
>
> Not incredible at all.  Surely, if the box I need is not in the
> "contextual range", then it is not `for real'.

What seems incredible is that there will ever be a context where only a
single box will be real. That is what is required for {lo tanxe} to be
specific, and that context seems extremely improbable.

> My sense of Lojban style is that people will tend to use {lo} and
> {loi} more often than {le} or {lei}

Some ststistics from Lojban text that appeared in the list:

le      3093
lo       669
lei      405
loi      280

This means that {le} is about five times more frequent than {lo}, among
today's users.

> -- after all, people think of
> themselves and others as talking about `reality' (even of unicorns, in
> context), and shifting to a context in which you are *designating*
> something according the predication that follows the {le} or {lei}
> requires effort ---why not talk about the real thing itself?

Because as I've been trying to explain, the primary distinction between
{le} and {lo} can't be 'reality'. I almost always use {le} for real
things. I don't use {lo} in those ocasions because that would change the
meaning, not because I want to leave open the possibility of not-really.
Using {lo} changes to nonspecific referents, and that is often not what
is meant.

> The categorizers {le} and {lei} lead to metaphor.

Not necessarily. In most cases, they refer to the real thing, and
changing to {lo} is not an option.

Jorge