From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 09 19:11:49 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 09 May 2006 19:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FdeAj-00037l-P4 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 19:11:29 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.227]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FdeAc-00037c-3O for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 19:11:29 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 67so52493wri for ; Tue, 09 May 2006 19:11:18 -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=QA8Sz9tP1QJL+5znp3yjaqmVSO++7QhDD7TU9wVVqAX3UnSiS8xm+i2XNj+TfIo8EnMS3i7TYebDGRGxHY0vdgEqaK8figcoARpU3pTFUcF4ZJNozJZsykzMCNECeKxUreLUycafwfiAXjRggQfCa8RNkpak+PNrE2btcmA7AOQ= Received: by 10.54.66.2 with SMTP id o2mr199498wra; Tue, 09 May 2006 19:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.17 with HTTP; Tue, 9 May 2006 19:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605091911q49d9049fk74d621c05ae2a62f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 23:11:18 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: 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: <20060509160830.76878.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11454 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/9/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > I understand this and see the utility. But I also see a major problem: > this approach makes it so that Lojban has no way to refer to all bears > specifically (specifically as in the opposite of vague in "in Lojban > you can express things as specifically or vaguely as you'd like"). I did a Google search for "the price of infinite precision" and among other things came up with this: What is that about, does anyone understand? Anyway, you can be as precise as you want to, if you are willing to pay the price. The idea that a relevance-independent absolute {ro} makes sense at all, in any case, is doubtful. Even for natural kinds, let alone for things with less clear prototypes. Would you say, for example, that every bear was born to a bear? If yes, how can that be? If not, how can that be? > What if context overwhelmingly favors three bears? For example, three > bears are chasing us -- I say {__ __ ro cribe}, and obviously I mean > all these three bears, right? But what if my intent is to say "all > bears can't climb trees"? (however wrong I may be.) I have no proper > (and consistent) way to say this, because in this case using an inner > {ro} clearly would default it to "all of the bears chasing us here-now > can't climb trees", which is not what I want to say. Some strategies that you might use: {lo ro sai cribe} (a more intense {ro} than might be expected), {lo ro cai cribe} (an extremely intense {ro}), {lo ro cribe poi zasti}, {lo ro cribe poi zasti gi'a xanri}, etc. BTW, in your example, I would probably be happy with {lo cribe na kakne lo nu cpare lo tricu}. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.