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

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

On 5/4/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> 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 <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/4/06, Jorge Llambías
> > <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov
> > <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> 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)

{lo cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bear eat berry
{lo'e cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bears eat berries (the typical bear
eats berries)
{le cribe cu citka lo jbari} - a bear ate berries (or maybe I think
that bears will come and eat berries, whatever)

...yes? Confusing.