From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 04 21:53:56 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 May 2006 21:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbsJs-00005I-LC for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 21:53:36 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.224]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbsJq-00005B-IR for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 21:53:36 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i34so498425wra for ; Thu, 04 May 2006 21:53:33 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Xl1qoRq0HRA1UF1tGwOWbGcEErQRU5xar4I3zf534WaED5xenyt4XIoIVVBgvKA14mi0swTT9HnhLJ0J0RMwWfRDKvfngszQYSEQ4WT1itjnyba1G3qpjtKg/cFLtSx4OFgu+VCwqQskN3/ViTdqDyNyPrJgVgopc3KpBtv3poU= Received: by 10.65.233.14 with SMTP id k14mr322107qbr; Thu, 04 May 2006 21:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.218.2 with HTTP; Thu, 4 May 2006 21:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 22:53:33 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: <20060505021104.78632.qmail@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060505021104.78632.qmail@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11385 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/4/06, John E Clifford wrote: > 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. yep, my bad. Misunderstood how lo'e was used. > --- 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? So we have lo, which could mean any of the following: lo'e - the typical le - not the typical, but some actual concrete (need not be existent) {lo cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bear eat berry {lo'e cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bears eat berries (the typical bear eats berries) {le cribe cu citka lo jbari} - a bear ate berries (or maybe I think that bears will come and eat berries, whatever) ...yes? Confusing. 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.