From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri May 05 05:58:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 57555 invoked from network); 5 May 2006 12:58:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m34.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 May 2006 12:58:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 May 2006 12:58:35 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fbzt8-0008F1-8A for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 05 May 2006 05:58:30 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fbzsc-0008EB-3T; Fri, 05 May 2006 05:57:59 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 05:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fbzs8-0008E2-0M for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 05:57:28 -0700 Received: from web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.122]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fbzs5-0008Du-Sk for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 05:57:27 -0700 Received: (qmail 6759 invoked by uid 60001); 5 May 2006 12:57:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20060505125724.6757.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.152.10] by web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 05 May 2006 05:57:24 PDT Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 05:57:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11387 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=2HBkbw7jWGeO87VG29JQUMxpwKb2Tzeero-Bhsou-BDZF8k9_Q X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25803 --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/4/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > This is a little like comparing apples and > > unicorns: {lo'e} is logically a very > different > > kind of thing from {le} -- or {lo}. It is a > > simple way to state a fairly complex claim > about > > a class of things (compare "the average" and > the > > like in English); it is not about particular > > whatsises either specifically or in general. > Or, > > if it is, it is so by some other means than > > referentially. > > yep, my bad. Misunderstood how lo'e was used. > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > wrote: > > > > > On 5/4/06, Jorge Llambías > > > wrote: > > > > On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov > > > wrote: > > > > > What does it mean to have the > > > > > bear "in mind"? Is it opposed to, say, > "any > > > bear", or "bears in > > > > > general", or "bearness", or "all bears > > > typically"? > > > > > > > > Yes. (Except for "bearness", because lo > cribe > > > has to be something > > > > that does cribe, and bearness doesn't.) > > > [...] > > > > > I would like to have what "in mind" > means > > > explained. > > > > > > > > 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? > > So we have lo, which could mean any of the > following: > lo'e - the typical > le - not the typical, but some actual concrete > (need not be existent) Not "mean" exactly, only that {lo} is permissible even when these others are. > {lo cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bear eat berry That is, whenever there is a relation claimed between a/some bear(s) and a/some berry(ies), {lo} is appropriate. > {lo'e cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bears eat > berries (the typical bear > eats berries) Or even (and logically somewhat clearer) "Bears typically eat berries" (Lojban doesn't have "typically" -- nor "generally" nor "specifically" nor dozens of other adverbs of this sort -- in a truly useful form (as modals, probably). In many cases it does not even have predicates to use (inappropriately) to form tanru. (You can sorta do generality and specificity with {su'a}, but against some apparent intentions of the creators.) > {le cribe cu citka lo jbari} - a bear ate > berries (or maybe I think > that bears will come and eat berries, whatever) I would probably say "The bear eat berry" to make (in a different way, alas) the point that {le} makes. > ...yes? Confusing. Well, it takes some getting used to (mainly {le}) and enough people have enough questions still to make a bit more (or better) discussion seem a good idea. 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.