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

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

On 5/10/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/9/06, John E Clifford
> > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > --- Maxim Katcharov
> > <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > {__ __ ro cribe} refers to all bears. At
> > the
> > > > very least all things
> > > > that were, are, and will be bears,
> > everywhere
> > > > (maybe even imaginary
> > > > bears, story-bears, dreamt-bears, or
> > > > hypothetical
> > > > I'm-afraid-a-bear-will-eat-me bears) -
> > > > henceforth "all bears".
> > >
> > > Well, no.  {_ _ ro cribe} refers to all the
> > bears
> > > relevant in the present context, which may be
> > > anything from the couple specifed to all the
> > > actual and possible bears.  In a neutral
> > context,
> > > it usually means all current actual bears.
> >
> > 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").
> > 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.
>
> First of all, what is the relevant context is
> largely the speaker's choice, though he has an
> obligation to bring the hearer onto his page if
> he goes to far from the "obvious" context.  In
> the second place, the limitiations of context

Then use my blank inner, "all in context". You're trying to provide
reasoning for why I'd never be able to restrict absolutely, and you
simply won't be able to do it. {ro __ ro penbi poi [in my hand {nau}]}
means one, single thing, and exactly the one I'm talking about (it's
an absolute restriction). The only vague things are vi, ca, and
perhaps even nau. If I change those into poi, "the one that is within
a meter of me and 1 minute of this-time", then, well, there you go.
The imperfection of my examples really doesn't obscure my point here.

> vary with the locution.  I think that the chasing
> bears become pretty decisive for {le cribe}; {lo
> criber is less clear and more adaptable (add {pi
> zasti} for example).  {lo cribe romei} is even
> more like to be general -- out of immediate
> context, and  {ro da poi cribre} even more so.
> So there are several ways to jump from talk about
> those chasing bears to bears in general, all
> existing bears, or even all possible bears
> (indeed all impossible ones as well).  (Though I

Ok, what are these ways? In a context that overwhelmingly favors
not-all-bears, I want to "jump out", and talk about "all things such
that are bears". How do I do this?

> do have to admire the sang froid of someone being
> chased by a honey-eater and discussing the
> general characteristics of such beasts.)
> For your particular case, {lo ro cribe naku cpare
> lo tricu} or some such, the first thinbg I'd note
> is that this is not a very natural way of sying
> this.  More immediate would be {no cribe cu cpare
> lo tricu}, in which case the need for {ro}
> disappears and a whole new set of presuppositions
> comes into play.

> From an English standpoint it's not natural. But that's beside the
point. If you want an example of ro that can't be switched around for
the sake of sounding natural, just consider "all bears can climb
trees", {__ ro cribe cu cpare lo tricu} .