[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On 5/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:


You're responding to the only two comments made by me that don't focus
on my point - that is, you've skimmed over my point entirely. The
paragraph starting with "Not by your rules. Here..." outlines my
point, and I would appreciate a response to it, as I think that it
shows clearly that there is something amiss with the current usage of
{ro}.


I think I gave my response more than once. {lo ro cribe} refers to all bears.
Nothing that can relevantly be said to be a bear is left out by it. I
don't know
how else to explain it, but obviously I'm not making myself understood by
you since what you call my rules are not my rules.

I will respond to the paragraph you indicate, but I will be repeating
myself:


> > How would you say "let's talk about all bears that have ever existed"?
>
>   e'u mi'o casnu lo ro cribe poi pu ja ca zasti

Not by your rules.


Yes, that's how I would say it.


Here you are inviting me to talk, out of the bears
that are in context, of the ones that have existed and exist.


Not the bears that are in context. All the things that can be relevantly
said to be a bear. There is an important difference there. Most things
that can be relevantly said to be bears, in most contexts, will not be
in the context.


This is
clearly inconsistent. When does {__ ro} refer to all bears?


When does "all bears" refer to all bears? Always.


When
someone includes the word zasti after a poi? When all bears in context
clearly already exist? "Aha, clearly he's not talking about all bears
already in context, because I thought that they all exist... wait, was
he talking about more than existing bears then"?


No, {lo ro cribe} is always "all bears", i.e. all the things that can relevantly
be said to be bears.


And what if all bears
in context don't exist now-before, and I want to suggest talking of
the ones that do?


How can they not exist and yet exist?


Do the rules of Lojban change based on the context
(all bears in context meet restrictions = new context, if they don't =
modification of current context)?


Not sure what you mean by that. The universe of discourse is not
something fixed once and for all discourses, nor is it fixed once and
for all in a given discourse either. By its very definition it is molded
by the discourse itself as it evolves.

mu'o mi'e xorxes