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

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

Lojbab:
> At 05:03 PM 12/17/02 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> >Jorge Llambias scripsit:
> >
> > > I agree with that last bit. On the other hand, {mi nitcu loi mikce}
> > > says that there is some fraction of the mass of doctors such
> > > that I need that fraction. Not what we want 
> >
> >Au contraire, I think it is exactly what we want (if we can dismiss
> >the "sundry detached doctor parts" interpretation) 
> 
> Since everyone loved my "predicate" interpretation of lo'e, let me try 
> another idea, that I don't think has been proposed yet (but who knows):
> 
> What if we take the myopic singularization (which may or may not match an 
> extant) doctor), and consider it a metonym for some real doctor. Then 
> "la'e lo'e mikce" should be something that "lo'e mikce" is suggestive 
> of. "la'e loi mikce" probably also works, and allows for the possibility 
> in "I need a doctor" that "I may need a doctor, who may refer me to 
> multiple specialists before all is said and done" 
> 
> I think that there is a lot of apparatus in the language like "la'e", and 
> "lu'e" that we haven't yet tried to tap in exploring solutions to "how to 
> say it". People might want to consider whether these things could apply to 
> other problems 

I have mulled it over and drawn a blank. If you can elaborate a
proposal a bit more, maybe I can do it more justice. As things stand,
I find the inclusion of la'e and lu'e in LAhE to be rather unfortunate,
except for la'e+zo/dei/etc.

--And.