[lojban] Re: More {lo}/{le} questions

["Maxim Katcharov" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

You'll have to excuse me if my response reeks of my position regarding
le and lo, as expressed the other thread : )

On 5/7/06, Yanis Batura <ybatura@mail.ru> wrote:
> coi ro lojbo darlu la lojban. banli
>
>
>
>
> 1) Couldn't the difference between {lo} and {le} be expressed like this:
>
> {le} indicates that the meaning of the sumti depends on the context [of the
> speaker, of conversation / situation etc.]
>
> {lo} indicates that the meaning of the sumti does not depend on the context
> (is universal, applicable to every context)

This distinction (if it is complete) seems to match what I've said
regarding {le} and {lo}: {lo} is "by universal definition", {le} is
"by definition of the speaker" ("context of the speaker").

I'd say that "context of the conversation" basically boils down to the
"context of the speaker". Perhaps they (those conversing) are using an
improvised definition for bear ("black bears only" or whatever), and
both understand it. {le} basically acknowledges that you might not be
using the standard definition.

I'd prefer the use of the word 'definition' instead of 'context':

{le} indicates that the meaning of the sumti depends on the definition
[of the speaker, of conversation / situation etc.]

{lo} indicates that the meaning of the sumti does not depend on the
definition [of the speaker, of conversation / situation etc.]  (is a
universal definition, applicable to every context)

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> 2) Isn't {da} an inconcrete version of {lo}, and {zo'e} - of {le}?

In what way?

I wouldn't say so, though they seem oddly similar. {da} refers to some
referant, be it of {lo} or {le}. {zo'e} simply says "there's something
here that makes this bridi true", so it seems that there is some
referant out there, though we definitely don't care about it.

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> 3) Are there ways to express this elusive difference (between {lo} and {le}
> sumti) for selbri?
>
> Example:
>
>      fagri
>
>      Fire!
>
> It means that the speaker is seeing or however experiencing the event of
> fire burning on some fuel in the air, i. e. it is the fire the speaker has
> in mind, so this selbri is more to the {le-} than to the {lo-} (I hope you

By context it probably means that they're seeing it, but really it just means:

(lo su'ono ?) cu fagri (lo su'ono ?) (lo su'ono ?)

(I don't want to get into a prenex) The question marks represent a
gismu that means nothing, basically:

(figure out what I'm referring to by context) cu fagri (figure out by
context) (figure out by context)

> understand me). Is there any way to say the same but with universal meaning,
> like "Exists!" in the philosophical sense?

zasti? What do you mean?


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.