From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 04 18:58:08 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 May 2006 18:58:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbpZm-0005bf-Kl for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 18:57:50 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.230]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbpZk-0005bX-O9 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 18:57:50 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i34so476726wra for ; Thu, 04 May 2006 18:57:47 -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=tq+Fk63J1YzCeWG0VCZUF8RxS1VanU0arf8E+eCLj1tfXCfJhGJ+gKdGxqjWFHyO4NAsYk6Eqw06AYRReqpvTFvZ0bLGC/Qr5qdFcH48WjGFe9zlzYvx6bdixjwtEksXYrWeqkey2r46nh0VFOSShhsgBXRy80qTcRtT8ar21uw= Received: by 10.65.235.17 with SMTP id m17mr279047qbr; Thu, 04 May 2006 18:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.218.2 with HTTP; Thu, 4 May 2006 18:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 19:57:46 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: <925d17560605041806w4585221dt79a30699d83a985d@mail.gmail.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: <925d17560605031836w12547ba3n87934504df64c309@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605040604s4366e278h5385c63dc7c0aacc@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605041643p201da7e1rdc57bb7f1339e9ed@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605041806w4585221dt79a30699d83a985d@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11382 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, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > On 5/4/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > 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? > > I will pass on {lo'e} since I don't really know how it works, nor do > I have a theory on how it should work. > > All I meant is that {le cribe cu nelci le jbari} cannot mean "bears > like berries", it can only be a statement about some particular bear > or group of bears and some particular berry or bunch of berries, not > about bears and berriies in general. The point that I'm getting at is: if {le} basically precludes some certain subset of {lo} that could be specified by some cmavo, then this means that it precludes that cmavo. And that's a strange way to use a word. It's like saying that {le} is {lo}, but never {lo mu} (a much more extreme example). {lo ro cribe} means "all bears", yes? What does {le ro cribe} mean? What if by that same {le cribe} I have "in mind" all bears? Wouldn't it then be the same as {lo ro cribe}? If not, then why is it that I can't have all bears "in mind"? 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.