From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Fri Nov 11 23:41:00 1994
Message-Id: <199411120440.AA28421@nfs2.digex.net>
Date: Fri Nov 11 23:41:00 1994
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus
Status: RO

> 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.)

The sumti paper says that {su'o lo'e ro} is the default quantifier of {lo'e}.
If it doesn't make sense, I guess it should be fixed.

I prefer to think of {lo'e} as the opaque gadri, especially since it seems
that {xe'e} won't be accepted. And maybe {le'e} would be the opaque gadri
with in-mind restrictions. When Santa says that he needs a box, but not any
will do, he has a 'type' of box in mind, but not a particular box.

So we have {re lo'e remna kakne le nu zutsi le sfofa}, because I'm not
restricting it to any special type of remna, just any two. But {la santas
nitcu le'e tanxe}, because he needs a certain type of box, not any old box
whatsoever.

Jorge