DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;        b=O3yyKYI0pp3OoRTaNBVDio9Frw5r1JdI4iocQ0SANrsgvswMY+fvW3aNSFS9Fd0k/U         /ZJhP8AFAUr5bOsf+0YGJNKceB5r1v1yRRwcVLfmPyEugeU4PNJBQ2rRRlf+Wn5Mqu5u         gwzUfphRjBF5pD77LKbNJqr/lshpBFaxY3Kag=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <429fde40912141824s7a503aa9o50eb2544c613437f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <429fde40912141716h2ebb6d8cy928a4cc2eed97235@mail.gmail.com>	 <925d17560912141813k3e14fd91q2fb40366f0091272@mail.gmail.com>	 <429fde40912141824s7a503aa9o50eb2544c613437f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:41:40 -0300
Message-ID: <925d17560912141841l238c8ea7k961b62b57e7ff7de@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: xorlo, lo'e, and le'e
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1580

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Joshua Choi <joshua@choi.name> wrote:
> I see—that makes sense; thanks for the answer! However, this part of
> xorlo isn't really mentioned in the Wiki pages on it at all, and so
> xorlo's scope seems much less general than it really is: all sumti.
> Could I add what you just said to the "How to use xorlo" page in the
> wiki? I'm sure it'd help other newcomers a lot.

Sure.

Personally, I'm not too thrilled with how they explain xorlo in that
page, but every time I consider making changes I end up deciding that
I will probably create more confusion than anything if I point out all
the places where I disagree with it, so I end up not touching it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


> 2009/12/14 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Joshua Choi <joshua@choi.name> wrote:
>>>
>>> Under the xorlo reform, the articles in the LA and LE selma'o are
>>> reformed. However, two articles in LE are not mentioned at all in
>>> either the informal or formal proposals of xorlo: lo'e and le'e. What
>>> is the status of these cmavo after xorlo? Are they deprecated? Or are
>>> they included in xorlo? Or are they unchanged?
>>
>> The significant point of xorlo is that sumti without an explicit outer
>> quantifier are not to be taken as quantifying the bridi they appear
>> in. In that sense, all sumti are affected, whether it's a sumti from
>> KOhA or one headed by LE, LA, LAhE, LI, LU, ZO, etc.
>>
>> But other than that, I think they remain unchanged (i.e. as little
>> understood as before).
>>
>> mu'o mi'e xorxes