[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

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

On 5/12/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> I never said that I want to refer to "all bears" unconstrained by
> anything, in fact I've stated that this would usually be the wrong
> thing to do - but that shouldn't mean that one can't do it. No, the
> utility of my inner {ro} is much more obvious when taken in the
> context of the "all bears in the cage" example (which is an "actual"
> example, and which you seem to have ignored), where the referant is
> constrained by something more than "that which is a bear" (e.g. "that
> which is a bear, and that which is in /that/ cage").

That would be {lo ro cribe poi nenri le va selri'u}. It would probably
not include bears that were before or will be later in the cage (although
I can imagine contexts that would make those relevant, as in "all bears
in that cage always end up getting sick, there must be something wrong
with it"). Much less likely would it be that it includes imaginary bears that
are in the cage, though again it would be possible to force it with some
strong context: "Imagine that that cage is full of bears. Now imagine that
all the bears in that cage suddenly turn into monkeys...." I don't think
an expression that in every possible circumstance includes all those
bears would be particularly useful.

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.