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

["Maxim Katcharov" <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>]

On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I hope I never said that was my definition. It is not. {ro} is just "all",
> > > not "all in context".
> > >
> > You had stated:
> >
> > > Well, for me {lo ro cribe} simply refers to all bears, (whatever
> > > "all bears" is in the context),
>
> That's right. Do you see the difference between "all in context"
> and "all" in context? I need the context to figure out what "all"
> quantifies, which in general won't be necessarily restricted to the
> things present in the context.

No, I see no difference. If you make this inner "all" open to
interpretation, then you have no way to be absolutely specific
regarding meaning "all ever", or ("all bears ever who are climbers of
this *pats a tree* ever, within 5 minutes backwards and forwards of
right... now.")