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 m0r5vpI-00005XC; Fri, 11 Nov 94 15:15 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1385; Fri, 11 Nov 94 15:15:24 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1381; Fri, 11 Nov 1994 15:15:22 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0467; Fri, 11 Nov 1994 14:12:14 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 12:55:18 GMT Reply-To: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 412 Lines: 10 cu'u la djan. kau,n. > A note: "re lo'e nanmu" doesn't mean "two typical men", it means "two > instances of the abstraction called 'the typical man'" and is semantically > unsound, since there is only one such objective abstraction. (If it isn't > objective, then "le'e" is wanted, and "re le'e nanmu" is fine.) Well, we need some way of saying "two typical men". Does {lo'e re nanmu} work? mu'o mi'e .i,n.