From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon May 08 06:24:50 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 08 May 2006 06:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fd5iy-0000yH-Le for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 06:24:32 -0700 Received: from web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.120]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fd5ix-0000y9-Pe for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 06:24:32 -0700 Received: (qmail 8338 invoked by uid 60001); 8 May 2006 13:24:30 -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=Aoj3UUzjVvMeDdsNQxTBR28GGcmz7/TMljO4F2h/e9jT03j0j3qTv9vJGYk2EtcWKv7a6RIoiTSOT5RTWXrvbZDQNvhqgVFLYtaCoz76idv61ZAE7gvOMCl1RibNxEJ1L6YR5mYIHVaVR3lHTcY2tVEAA607mff/5yUbwX3TAHU= ; Message-ID: <20060508132430.8336.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.152.10] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 08 May 2006 06:24:30 PDT Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 06:24:30 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: More {lo}/{le} questions To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <968279771.20060508075610@mail.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11433 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 --- Yanis Batura wrote: > coi ro lojbo darlu la lojban. banli > > 1) Couldn't the difference between {lo} and > {le} be expressed like this: > > {le} indicates that the meaning of the sumti > depends on the context [of the speaker, of > conversation / situation etc.] > {lo} indicates that the meaning of the sumti > does not depend on the context (is universal, > applicable to every context) No. To be sure, these factors are sometimes consequences of the distinction but the distinction is different, namely, {le} is for specific items (which, indeed, depend upon the speaker's intentions), and {lo} is completely general (so long as the predicate actually applies). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 2) Isn't {da} an inconcrete version of {lo}, > and {zo'e} - of {le}? No, or at least I don't see it. {da} is as inspecific as {lo}, but so is {zo'e} -- if not more so (as witness that it can be replaced by a blank). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 3) Are there ways to express this elusive > difference (between {lo} and {le} sumti) for > selbri? > Example: > > fagri > Fire! > > It means that the speaker is seeing or however > experiencing the event of fire burning on some > fuel in the air, i. e. it is the fire the > speaker has in mind, so this selbri is more to > the {le-} than to the {lo-} (I hope you > understand me). Is there any way to say the > same but with universal meaning, like "Exists!" > in the philosophical sense? Again, I don't see your point. An observative, like {fagri} standing alone expresses (presumably) the speaker's immediate experience. But that is not the same as being specific. If anything it is the opposite; it is something you have to experience to identify, rather than knowing it beforehand (but talking that way stretches the characteristic quite a bit). I suppose that this understanding of observatives means that {zasti} is something we can always say, but that hardly makes it general. 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.