Message-Id: <m0r8hQh-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 18 Nov 1994 20:19:19 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: quick comment on {loi}
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1115
Lines: 36

la'o gy Bob Chassell gy cusku di'e

[BTW, Bob, do you have a Lojban name so I don't have to use la'o?]

> Someone recently spoke of {loi mlatu} as a whole mass of cats.
> In so far as {loi} is derived from JCB's `lo', it better to think of
> {loi mlatu} as a *single* manifestation of a cat.

For a single cat, it makes little difference to use {lo mlatu} or
{loi mlatu}.

On the other hand, I agree that {loi mlatu} must be though of as
a single entity, not as a number of cats taken each by itself.
I'm not sure if that is what you meant by single manifestation.

> When you speak Lojban as an object oriented programmer,

...which I hope I never will... :)

> you could use
> {loi} for an instance of a class.

Couldn't the programmer use {lo} for the same thing, too?

> Usually `an instance' is considered
> singular, although, of course you can have many instances.

For many instances you would definitely not use {loi}, unless
you are taking them all as one group.

> (I have
> three instances of class Window on my screen right now.)

And that would be {ci lo me la'o gy Window gy}. No {loi} there.

Jorge