RE: [jboske] RE: lo'ie != lo'ei

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Jordan:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:44:46AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> > I'm close to compromising, but of course I will withhold final 
> > judgement until someone like xod or Jordan chimes in 
> 
> I'm still waiting to see more arguments, but I'm starting to think
> "loi" is in fact what we want 
> 
> > I am reasonably close to accepting that l(x).broda(x) needs its own 
> > official gadri, and I think And's terms of reference on how the 
> > decision would be framed are acceptable to me. Me privately, obviously, 
> > not me BPFKJ. I do want to hear from other fundies 
> 
> I'm under the impression that \x: broda(x) is leka ce'u broda. If
> we are willing to assume that all djica/nitcu/etc predicates can
> be overloaded to take ka, then we can use that I suppose 
> 
> However, imho they should've all been designed like sisku (which
> And calls "abomination" :). The reason is that if you need something
> or want something or are seeking something, you are really looking
> for *anything*[1] which fits a certain set of criteria. 

So I can't seek Nick, but instead have to sisku lV ka ce'u du lV
nitcion?

> This way we
> would be saying {mi djica leka klama le zarci} instead of choosing
> a gadri for a nu such as le, which is obviously wrong[2] 
> 
> [1] This is why I was trying to shoe-horn it into universal
> quantification 
> 
> [2] Now though, I think {mi djica loinu mi klama le zarci} may in
> fact be correct. I've generally used "lenu" or "lonu", even though
> I think the first is obviously wrong, and the second is questionable 

Hurray! Something we agree on! I'm a loinu-er too. Hope that doesn't
put you off!

--And.