I too am having trouble getting all that under my belt. Not enough information in l4b. I'm thinking perhaps Reference-Grammar might have some answers?

le: Starts a sumti. Doesn't specify whether it's being used literally or whatever.

lo: Starts a sumti, and specifies that you should be able to figure out what it means using only the literal definitions of the words therein.

That's my impression.

http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c6/s4.html

>>150

Thanks. I understand the aforementioned much better. However, I now am having trouble with the sets (la'i, le'i, lo'i).

I am reading a book series called the Wheel of Time (Robert Jordan). In it (and I am probably paraphrasing), he describes how an Ajah (group) of Aes Sedai (female wielders of a magic-like force) are prejudiced toward men (and probably, to/according to (the standards set by) men). Since "Reds" is a name and is refering to a mass (I think), could I use something like "la'i xunred", if I was translating it?

I also do not understand "bo". Would I use it when saying "a great (big) tree and cow" (when I mean that the cow is great as well)? Basically, does "lo barda tricu .ebo lo bakni" make sense and mean the above?

I do not know how to reply back to a reply to me, so please forgive me.

Thanks again!

I meant "lai" not "la'i" when referencing "xunred". Actually, I do not even know if I have to make "xunre" end with a consonant.

>>163

Both "xunre" and "xunred" are valid names, but they are of different types. Anything which ends with a consonant in Lojban is a cmevla, and can be used as a name. Those names don't have to have anything to do with other Lojban words-- "xumred" is as valid a name as "xunred". You can also use "xunre" as a name on its own, but only because it is a valid brivla-- "la xumre" would not be gendra. You can use any selbri as a name, not just a plain brivla, for instance you could use the name "la terpa be tu'a loi cribe", meaning "Afraid Of Bears", or "la zmadu be lo xrula bei lo ka melbi", meaning "More Beautiful Than A Flower".

>>170

Actually, "la xumre" is gendra too. The parser will identify "xumre" as a valid gismu form and that's all we need here. "xumre" doesn't mean anything, but names don't need to mean anything anyway.

>>147

lo = there exists exactly (# (default: 1 or more)) (sumti)

>>147

le = that which I shall describe as exactly (# (default: 1 or more)) (sumti)

>>147

loi = there exists exactly (# (default: at least 1)) part (whole quantity) of the mass (considered as a whole) which really is (sumti)

lei = the mass (considered as a whole) described as (# (default: one or more)) (sumti)

>>147

lai = The mass (considered as a whole) named by me/the narrator as (sumti) with only one limited and possible meaning.

*Is it "ro lo __" or "lo ro __"? Also, would that be the same as "ro loi __"/"loi ro __"?

>>193

I am not sure about my interpretation of "loi"

>>195
None of these say "there exists" -- for that you would use {da}

       Cmavo {da}, of selma'o {KOhA1}, with rafsi {dav, dza}, glossing to {something 1}:
    logically quantified existential pro-sumti: there exists something 1 (usually restricted)

They can simply refer to something you have in mind, fictional or existing or otherwise.

       Cmavo {lo}, of selma'o {LE}, glossing to {the really is}:
    veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are) ...

       Cmavo {le}, of selma'o {LE}, glossing to {the described}:
    non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as ...

       Cmavo {loi}, of selma'o {LE}, glossing to {the mass really is}:
    veridical descriptor: the mass of individual(s) that is(are) ...

       Cmavo {lei}, of selma'o {LE}, glossing to {the mass described}:
    non-veridical descriptor: the mass of individual(s) described as ...

       Cmavo {lai}, of selma'o {LA}, glossing to {the mass of named}:
    name descriptor: the mass of individual(s) named ... ; takes name or selbri description

>>194

> *Is it "ro lo __" or "lo ro __"? Also, would that be the same as "ro loi __"/"loi ro __"?

I don't understand this part of Lojban. CLL doesn't help much.

See what you make of it:

http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c16/s7.html#e7d6

I suspect {ro lo ...} would mean "all of the one(s) that really is/are ..." and {lo ro ...} would mean "the one(s) that really is/are all of ...". However, unless the "lo ro" means "the set of" or "the mass of", it doesn't seem to make sense to say "the one that is all". If, indeed, it does mean mass or set, then it may be interchangeable with {lo'i} and {loi}. {lo'i} refers to the set, e.g. "the set of humans is large", whereas {loi} refers to the mass of individuals themselves, e.g. "the mass of humans are irrational and utterly insane". If it is interchangeable, that does not sound very good. In this case I would hope {ro lo} is correct and {lo ro} is incorrect.

From http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Conlang+Test+Sentences&bl

# The tallest and smallest men in the world both joined the circus.

* lo clarai e lo toryrai be lo ro nanmu pe le munje cu cmibi'o le tigbe'e 

It would seem that {lo ro} is correct from this example, and that it means the same as {loi}, where {loi} may be more precise. I'm not sure.

>>204

Perhaps [lo ro] means that there are all (whatevers), treated individually, such that they do (blank).

It would kind of be like the mass interpretation except that the members are not treated as anything other than individual, integral units (use for quantum physics, maybe?).