From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 05 10:07:36 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc3lu-0004Uq-Tb for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 10:07:19 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.231]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc3lp-0004Ua-IE for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 10:07:18 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i34so596694wra for ; Fri, 05 May 2006 10:07:08 -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=KCgly5J9SsUdWJwxtf2YE0x4GG7qVgzgdbrz4AYpcYgLalv36HMEwrneSN3Y4dbUIP7UcLx0n/o4ShVwfzkHRayxDlfkALZh5iNhme+jfDmBhCu9VNL83Z5I8H3/55s02uw+jO4nVd6puaagvSwCJvpuw4oQDjAQrha86Z7ZtXs= Received: by 10.65.97.11 with SMTP id z11mr530841qbl; Fri, 05 May 2006 10:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.249.4 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2006 10:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:07:08 -0400 From: "Matt Arnold" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: <20060505165248.28090.qmail@web50210.mail.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: <20060505165248.28090.qmail@web50210.mail.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11393 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/5/06, Ed Blake wrote: > > .u'i As a novice I would like to get into this conversation and muddy the > waters a bit! > > In my understanding the difference between lo cribe and le cribe is that when > I say "lo cribe cu citka lo jbari" I mean Actual bears eat Actual berries - > while when I say "le cribe cu citka le jbari" I mean "there is some thing I'm > calling a bear (which may or may not be vaguely resemble a bear) is eating > something I'm calling 'berries' (regardless of whether they are really apples > or papaya or people)". > > lo == the thing which (apparently) really is X > le == the thing I'm calling X (which is not required to be a real X) > > So the usefulness of le is that you can describe things by their > characteristics/behavior or any word you want to apply to them. > While with lo you mean what you (exactly) say - no metaphor, no simile, no > puns, etc. > > So is that it, or am I totaly decieved? Ed, That's technically the meaning of {lo} and {le} according to CLL. Very few people like it, and nobody uses it that way any more. It is the only major change made to the language since the publication of CLL. See this for more info: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo -epkat 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.