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 m0rCuy7-00007FC; Wed, 30 Nov 94 21:45 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4815; Wed, 30 Nov 94 21:45:49 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4814; Wed, 30 Nov 1994 21:45:43 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0108; Wed, 30 Nov 1994 20:40:01 +0100 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 19:05:01 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: lohe, lehe & ka X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 30 Nov 94 12:21:54 EST.) <199411301721.AA29361@access2.digex.net> Content-Length: 1681 Lines: 39 John: > la xorxes. pu cusku di'e > > > I know, but you don't believe everything that comes from Up There, > > > do you? > la .and. cusku di'e > > I do when it's signed "John Cowan". > > Hey, hey, hey, now. Just because I can write clearly and concisely doesn't > mean I'm always RIGHT. Clearly, concisely and with such authority, such command... I should have added a big ZO'O, but didn't do so because I wanted to use it together with a discursive for sincerity & couldn't find one - that is, I wanted to signify levity rather than humorous insincerity. > In this case, I'm not sure I know the answer any more. I think someone > who understands masses (JCB? Malinowski?) may need to declare. JCB once > wrote an essay called "The Creatures Of >Lo<" (meaning "loi"); when I > have a chance, I'll transcribe an excerpt. As far as I can see, the opposing views of LOI are equally coherent, and the issue is which view is declared to be the right one for LOI. Whichever turns out to be right, we will then ask for a way to express the other. If we still wish to debate the matter, I would ask Jorge how he thinks LOI differs from LO. Is it just that "re loi" is inappropriate? That is, we can distinguish between one mass and another, but not between the individuals that compose a mass? I think that's Jorge's view. This contrasts with my understanding, which is that we don't differentiate between one mass of broda and another. On the view I have just attributed to Jorge, "ro loi" ought to mean "every mass of", and "re loi" should make sense (two differentiable masses). On my view, there is just one "loi broda", and there is no need for an external quantifier. --- And