Message-Id: <199601241824.UAA16716@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 24 Jan 1996 18:09:59 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      {lee}, {lohi}
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1492
Lines: 29

Djan:
> > > "le'e broda" means that you take the members of "lo'i broda", perform
> > > an in-mind selection, and then take the "lo'e" of the result. So it
> > > gives you a {lo'e}-type abstraction that is based on a subset of the
> > > population chosen by the speaker.
> > That could be done by {loe (ro) le((h)i) broda}, couldn't it?
> Yes; in fact, "le'e" was rather an afterthought to the set of gadri.  It
> first appeared in the "16 rules for Lojban" that Athelstan did up in a
> hurry.

I think it should be left undefined until someone thinks of a better use
for it. At any rate, your above definition bears no resemblance to the
maoste's "the stereotypical". I had suggested for {lee} the meaning
"the average" as in "the average person has 2.4 kids", but subsequently
realized that this averagizer is scope sensitive, and therefore ought
either to be a quantifier exportable to the prenex or to be rendered
by means of a brivla, with one sumti for the things averaged and another
sumti for the result.

> The whole point of "la'i broda" is that there may be more than one thing
> answering to the name "broda"; thus "la'i djan" is the set of things I
> call John (in the sense {x : x is called John by me}). This is not
> necessarily all the things called John, of course.

I am right, aren't I, that the official line on cmene is that they are
potentially nonce, ad hoc labels, and do not come with any promise that
they are to be found in any standard onomasticon?

coo, mie and