Received: from access2.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA10787
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@nfs1.digex.net>); Tue, 11 Oct 1994 10:41:07 -0400
Received: by access2.digex.net id AA28379
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Tue, 11 Oct 1994 10:41:03 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199410111441.AA28379@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: lo [nonexistent]
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 10:41:02 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <88293.9410101857@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> from "ucleaar" at Oct 10, 94 07:57:29 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:        481
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Oct 11 10:41:18 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

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 <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.