From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Fri Aug 24 08:40:46 2001
Return-Path: <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>
X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 15:40:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 39963 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 15:39:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 15:39:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 15:39:27 -0000
Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer);
          Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:17:55 +0100
Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk
          with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:44:51 +0100
Message-Id: <sb868483.029@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:44:42 +0100
To: jjllambias <jjllambias@hotmail.com>, lojban <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: lo'e (was: Re: [lojban] ce'u
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
From: And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10041

>>> Jorge Llambias <jjllambias@hotmail.com> 08/23/01 11:55pm >>>
[...]
#I think you are right that nu is used wrong, but I don't think
#the alternative is du'u in those cases. The problem, I think, is
#as usual the quantifiers. {le nu broda} should refer to an event
#in real space-time to the same extent that {le gerku} does.
#{lo'e nu broda} is what we should use when referring to events
#that don't ca'a fasnu.

I can't really respond to this, because I don't understand lo'e.
You're the only person who purports to understand it, and you
have your own idiosyncratic story about it.

Clearly (?) if lo'e gerku actually means "the typical", i.e. "lo fadni be
tu'o ka gerku", then it won't do what you want it to. And anyway,
it'd be annoying to have 2 gadri for le/lo fadni.

Now, you tell me that lo'e gerku is the intension. To me, then, that
would be "tu'o ka ce'u zo'e gerku" or "tu'o ka ce'u ce'u gerku".
So either (a) (i) lo'e is still redundant, but at least we know what it
means, and (ii) I don't see how {tu'o ka ce'u nu} is going to solve
the erroneous {le nu}s, or (b) I still am pretty clueless about what
you think lo'e means.

--And.