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

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

I didn't mean to imply that that is the basic function of {le}, only that
{le} does in fact do that. I was agreeing with your:

> 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"?

So I think that yes, {le} is opposed to that.

> {lo ro cribe} means "all bears", yes?

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"?

Maybe you can, but "all bears" is not the same as "bears in general".
Perhaps {lo ro bruna be mi} and {le ro bruna be mi} are almost
indistinguishable, but the more open the class, the more the
differences between generic and particular reference can kick in.

mu'o mi'e xorxes