From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 05 12:02:03 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 12:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc5Ye-00076e-IB for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 12:01:44 -0700 Received: from web50206.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.38.47]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc5Yc-00076X-Io for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 12:01:44 -0700 Received: (qmail 92211 invoked by uid 60001); 5 May 2006 19:01:37 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=UjxY9hAgaAiBsmC0jbIJWnBHnzZQerIPw10mbPRQICuUYDSlzstW+v4cK1109hT3Vc5hP7IALku3EEFW4cyq79OMaZ+gKC4KZ3gHkVcetbzx9ranjBpbMtW8lioyybQx1XhoPPaCYdML3K9El20zJRvk4qFadGC9YNjpTxkObTk= ; Message-ID: <20060505190137.92209.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.181.173] by web50206.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 05 May 2006 12:01:37 PDT Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:01:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Ed Blake Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-archive-position: 11396 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: kitsune_e@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Matt Arnold wrote: > > Ed, > > That's technically the meaning of {lo} and {le} according to CLL. Very > few people like it, and nobody uses it that way any more. It is the > only major change made to the language since the publication of CLL. > See this for more info: > > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo > > -epkat > .i'a I've read xorlo a few times, and have made a question/note on the Lessons Errata tiki page as to how xorlo effects the lessons. But .o'i I believe my explination is in accordance with xorlo... The only thing that has (non-explicitly) been taken from lo is it strict logical definition. Using "lo cribe" still requires the truth of the bridi "lo cribe cu cribe" (which le doesn't require)... right? Otherwise lo would be completely void of meaning. It would mean 'that which is neither named or described by, but still called, cribe'? Lo talks about the class of a thing without specificity as to plurality, state, or wholeness. The sumti created by lo broda points to a thing that satisfies the x1 place of its internal selbri. .a'o mi jimpe 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.