From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 04 19:11:26 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 May 2006 19:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fbpmd-00066K-N3 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 19:11:07 -0700 Received: from web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.118]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fbpmb-00066C-Qf for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 19:11:07 -0700 Received: (qmail 78634 invoked by uid 60001); 5 May 2006 02:11:04 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ZdsUxBEE8mUzVSqVnmk5fjA9LMWEzDE/iOkIUhc4yPZveyDN/Eae7qj1qXlbj/ez8pvqeGKWRV9lB8L4UemgmM4vkyytg4SQiOFbAi1VpSGsp4e3QaiFyH6JG53lcnkk2TYp8Ebt67/+ezIR8ySqA8l7fLIFXiiIqhpFx3dUluo= ; Message-ID: <20060505021104.78632.qmail@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.152.10] by web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 04 May 2006 19:11:04 PDT Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 19:11:04 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11383 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list This is a little like comparing apples and unicorns: {lo'e} is logically a very different kind of thing from {le} -- or {lo}. It is a simple way to state a fairly complex claim about a class of things (compare "the average" and the like in English); it is not about particular whatsises either specifically or in general. Or, if it is, it is so by some other means than referentially. --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/4/06, Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > > What does it mean to have the > > > bear "in mind"? Is it opposed to, say, "any > bear", or "bears in > > > general", or "bearness", or "all bears > typically"? > > > > Yes. (Except for "bearness", because lo cribe > has to be something > > that does cribe, and bearness doesn't.) > [...] > > > I would like to have what "in mind" means > explained. > > > > I think {le} indeed serves to preclude the > "any" or "in general" > > interpretation that {lo} does not preclude. > > So... is it then impossible to use {lo'e} in > conjunction with "le"? If > it is possible, then what do you mean by {le} > serving to preclude the > "any" or "in general" interpretations? > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to > lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to > http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to > secretary@lojban.org for help. > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.