Re: [lojban] More {lo}/{le} questions

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Yanis Batura <ybatura@mail.ru> wrote:

> coi ro lojbo darlu la lojban. banli
> 
> 1) Couldn't the difference between {lo} and
> {le} be expressed like this:
> 
> {le} indicates that the meaning of the sumti
> depends on the context [of the speaker, of
> conversation / situation etc.]
> {lo} indicates that the meaning of the sumti
> does not depend on the context (is universal,
> applicable to every context)

No.  To be sure, these factors are sometimes
consequences of the distinction but the
distinction is different, namely, {le} is for
specific items (which, indeed, depend upon the
speaker's intentions), and {lo} is completely
general (so long as the predicate actually
applies).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 2) Isn't {da} an inconcrete version of {lo},
> and {zo'e} - of {le}?

No, or at least I don't see it.  {da} is as
inspecific as {lo}, but so is {zo'e} -- if not
more so (as witness that it can be replaced by a
blank).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 3) Are there ways to express this elusive
> difference (between {lo} and {le} sumti) for
> selbri?
> Example:
> 
>      fagri
>      Fire!
> 
> It means that the speaker is seeing or however
> experiencing the event of fire burning on some
> fuel in the air, i. e. it is the fire the
> speaker has in mind, so this selbri is more to
> the {le-} than to the {lo-} (I hope you
> understand me). Is there any way to say the
> same but with universal meaning, like "Exists!"
> in the philosophical sense?

Again, I don't see your point.  An observative,
like {fagri} standing alone expresses
(presumably) the speaker's immediate experience. 
But that is not the same as being specific.  If
anything it is the opposite; it is something you
have to experience to identify, rather than
knowing it beforehand (but talking that way
stretches the characteristic quite a bit).  I
suppose that this understanding of observatives
means that {zasti} is something we can always
say, but that hardly makes it general.