[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

["Jorge Llambías" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> The point that I'm getting at is: if {le} basically precludes some
> certain subset of {lo} that could be specified by some cmavo, then
> this means that it precludes that cmavo. And that's a strange way to
> use a word. It's like saying that {le} is {lo}, but never {lo mu} (a
> much more extreme example).

I didn't mean to imply that that is the basic function of {le}, only that
{le} does in fact do that. I was agreeing with your:

> 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"?

So I think that yes, {le} is opposed to that.

> {lo ro cribe} means "all bears", yes?

Yes.

> What does {le ro cribe} mean? What if by that same {le cribe}
> I have "in mind" all bears? Wouldn't
> it then be the same as {lo ro cribe}? If not, then why is it that I
> can't have all bears "in mind"?

Maybe you can, but "all bears" is not the same as "bears in general".
Perhaps {lo ro bruna be mi} and {le ro bruna be mi} are almost
indistinguishable, but the more open the class, the more the
differences between generic and particular reference can kick in.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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.