2017-12-03 13:49 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:On 2 Dec 2017 17:26, <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
Em sábado, 2 de dezembro de 2017 18:33:56 UTC+3, And Rosta escreveu:When rendering these sorts of unarbitrary name into Lojban, a vacillation between "lo" and "la" would be understandable, tho I myself would be inclined pretty much to treat English capitalization as the criterion for using "la" in place of "lo". I suppose it stands to reason that if "lo" may be used with unarbitrary names then so may "le". In my earlier messages I had said that "le" seems unsuitable for rendering "the" in the main, but that presupposes a certain understanding of "le", the logical form of which makes it pretty much equivalent to "a certain", whereas I suppose that CLL could be interpreted in a way that makes it more consistent with "the", tho in that case I would struggle to see how it differs from xorlo "lo" (which probably explains why xorlovian apologists favour jettisoning all gadri but "lo" and "la").Didn't you miss the `` The last descriptor of this section is “la”, which indicates that the selbri which follows it has been dissociated from its normal meaning and is being used as a name. Like “le” descriptions, “la” descriptions are implicitly restricted to those I have in mind. ''part quoted by la bremenli?I didn't miss it. CLL is mostly an informal attempt to describe technical linguistic notions succinctly to laypeople, so as with most forms of communication, but not necessarily the codification of rules and laws, it is necessary to read it in the context of what one presumes the author was intending to communicate.Then what does this quote mean? Nothing and should be ignored according to you?