Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0quj8R-00005YC; Tue, 11 Oct 94 17:29 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1415; Tue, 11 Oct 94 17:29:13 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1412; Tue, 11 Oct 1994 17:29:11 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6969; Tue, 11 Oct 1994 16:26:06 +0100 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 10:41:02 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: lo [nonexistent] X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <88293.9410101857@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> from "ucleaar" at Oct 10, 94 07:57:29 pm Content-Length: 506 Lines: 16 la .and. cusku di'e > I don't think lohe makes claims about the world; I agree. > it makes claims for > default properties of categories in our minds. So it works. On your view, then, the difference between "le'e" and "lo'e" is that the former refers to the speaker's idiosyncratic categories or properties thereof, whereas the latter refers to consensus categories or properties? -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.