[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/4/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > This is a little like comparing apples and
> > unicorns: {lo'e} is logically a very
> different
> > kind of thing from {le} -- or {lo}.  It is a
> > simple way to state a fairly complex claim
> about
> > a class of things (compare "the average" and
> the
> > like in English); it is not about particular
> > whatsises either specifically or in general. 
> Or,
> > if it is, it is so by some other means than
> > referentially.
> 
> yep, my bad. Misunderstood how lo'e was used.
> 
> > --- Maxim Katcharov
> <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/4/06, Jorge Llambías
> > > <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov
> > > <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >  What does it mean to have the
> > > > > bear "in mind"? Is it opposed to, say,
> "any
> > > bear", or "bears in
> > > > > general", or "bearness", or "all bears
> > > typically"?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. (Except for "bearness", because lo
> cribe
> > > has to be something
> > > > that does cribe, and bearness doesn't.)
> > > [...]
> > > > > I would like to have what "in mind"
> means
> > > explained.
> > > >
> > > > I think {le} indeed serves to preclude
> the
> > > "any" or "in general"
> > > > interpretation that {lo} does not
> preclude.
> > >
> > > So... is it then impossible to use {lo'e}
> in
> > > conjunction with "le"? If
> > > it is possible, then what do you mean by
> {le}
> > > serving to preclude the
> > > "any" or "in general" interpretations?
> 
> So we have lo, which could mean any of the
> following:
> lo'e - the typical
> le - not the typical, but some actual concrete
> (need not be existent)

Not "mean" exactly, only that {lo} is permissible
even when these others are. 
> {lo cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bear eat berry

That is, whenever there is a relation claimed
between a/some bear(s) and a/some berry(ies),
{lo} is appropriate.

> {lo'e cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bears eat
> berries (the typical bear
> eats berries)

Or even (and logically somewhat clearer) "Bears
typically eat berries" (Lojban doesn't have
"typically" -- nor "generally" nor "specifically"
  nor dozens of other adverbs of this sort -- in
a truly useful form (as modals, probably).  In
many cases it does not even have predicates to
use (inappropriately) to form tanru. (You can
sorta do generality and specificity with {su'a},
but against some apparent intentions of the
creators.)

> {le cribe cu citka lo jbari} - a bear ate
> berries (or maybe I think
> that bears will come and eat berries, whatever)

I would probably say "The bear eat berry" to make
(in a different way, alas) the point that {le}
makes.
 
> ...yes? Confusing.

Well, it takes some getting used to (mainly {le})
and enough people have enough questions still to
make a bit more (or better) discussion seem a
good idea.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.