From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 10 06:46:30 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 10 May 2006 06:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fdp13-0001Ep-If for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 06:46:13 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.226]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fdp0z-0001Ef-8e for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 06:46:13 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 67so150635wri for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 06:46:07 -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=s8ccpzn6Pgx7IYcct+PNYRDXUpC5kAsDereqmkKrWwzQkxSgsdoksth7PK68gTYQCE31CIpBkGhn8vZZWS2EWqJqJ/ALmeK+jJyDjQKO8mEJGPLv3kXyZAfahP/DGeeoXBJuJaBOqubTnACDE4SmgBvUdaJNX/0qR5INAWXUS4w= Received: by 10.54.69.17 with SMTP id r17mr939506wra; Wed, 10 May 2006 06:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.17 with HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 06:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605100646o576097b7n1eb81fa3d7c681df@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:46:07 -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> <925d17560605091911q49d9049fk74d621c05ae2a62f@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11458 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 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > Well, the point is that you /can/ be as precise as you want to. In the > pen example, I restrict fully, right down to that single pen that I'm > thinking of, using {ro __ ro vica cu penbi}. There's no need to be > "infinitely" precise here: three words (ro, vi, penbi) do the job > completely. [That {cu} is ungrammatical there.] {nau} might be more precise than {vi} and {ca}, which rely on an unstated reference point. But there is no fully context-independent meaning of how widely "here" and "now" can extend. In some context "here" could mean "the planet Earth", in other contexts it could mean "this room", etc. Same for "now". > But what if I want to restrict down to "all bears that are in that > cage", or "all buildings on my street"? This sort of > complete-restriction is used all the time! Yes, and it's easy to do in Lojban: {lo ro cribe poi nenri le va selri'u}, {lo ro dinju pe le mi klaji}. > I don't understand what you mean by "relevance-independant". I mean that the set of referents that a word brings into a discourse is never given by the word itself independently of the context of the discourse. 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.