[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le
On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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}.
>
By your definition, "all in context"::
I hope I never said that was my definition. It is not. {ro} is just "all",
not "all in context".
"All in context" is a bad use for inner {ro} for these reasons.
I agree it would be bad.
> 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.
>
Yes, but using context to figure things out is different then refering
to the context.
Right. You need context to figure out the precise referent of {lo ro cribe},
but it certainly does not normally refer to whatever bears are present in the
context.
"I'm sure you know what I mean" vs. "X that is
relative to me in manner Y".
Not sure what you mean by these. "I'm sure you know which one(s)
I mean" is more or less what {le} means. "X that is relative to me in
manner Y" is unrelated to {le} or {lo}, as far as I can see.
mu'o mi'e xorxes