Re: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

["Maxim Katcharov" <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>]

On 5/4/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/4/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> 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"?