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

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

On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, the point is that you /can/ be as precise as you want to. In the
> pen example, I restrict fully, right down to that single pen that I'm
> thinking of, using {ro __ ro vica cu penbi}. There's no need to be
> "infinitely" precise here: three words (ro, vi, penbi) do the job
> completely.

[That {cu} is ungrammatical there.]

{nau} might be more precise than {vi} and {ca}, which rely on an unstated
reference point.

But there is no fully context-independent meaning of how widely
"here" and "now" can extend. In some context "here" could mean
"the planet Earth", in other contexts it could mean "this room", etc.
Same for "now".

> But what if I want to restrict down to "all bears that are in that
> cage", or "all buildings on my street"? This sort of
> complete-restriction is used all the time!

Yes, and it's easy to do in Lojban:
{lo ro cribe poi nenri le va selri'u}, {lo ro dinju pe le mi klaji}.

> I don't understand what you mean by "relevance-independant".

I mean that the set of referents that a word brings into a discourse
is never given by the word itself independently of the context of the
discourse.

mu'o mi'e xorxes