[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le
On 5/9/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand this and see the utility. But I also see a major problem:
this approach makes it so that Lojban has no way to refer to all bears
specifically (specifically as in the opposite of vague in "in Lojban
you can express things as specifically or vaguely as you'd like").
I did a Google search for "the price of infinite precision" and among
other things came up with this: <http://satirist.org/whale/2001/09/24-clue.html>
What is that about, does anyone understand?
Anyway, you can be as precise as you want to, if you are willing
to pay the price.
The idea that a relevance-independent absolute {ro} makes sense at all,
in any case, is doubtful. Even for natural kinds, let alone for things with less
clear prototypes. Would you say, for example, that every bear was born
to a bear? If yes, how can that be? If not, how can that be?
What if context overwhelmingly favors three bears? For example, three
bears are chasing us -- I say {__ __ ro cribe}, and obviously I mean
all these three bears, right? But what if my intent is to say "all
bears can't climb trees"? (however wrong I may be.) I have no proper
(and consistent) way to say this, because in this case using an inner
{ro} clearly would default it to "all of the bears chasing us here-now
can't climb trees", which is not what I want to say.
Some strategies that you might use: {lo ro sai cribe} (a more intense {ro}
than might be expected), {lo ro cai cribe} (an extremely intense {ro}),
{lo ro cribe poi zasti}, {lo ro cribe poi zasti gi'a xanri}, etc.
BTW, in your example, I would probably be happy with {lo cribe na kakne
lo nu cpare lo tricu}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes