Re: [jboske] gadri

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la lojbab cusku di'e

I think your proposal about le/lo goes in the right direction,
though you still talk of default quantifiers while the best
assignment is that they should have no quantifier: they should
be singular terms.

> I think that if du'u abstractions refer to facts/relations in the real
> world i.e. being realized, si'o abstractions might be used to refer to
> facts/relations that might or might not be realized or realizable.

Does anybody use {du'u} that way? I think we use {du'u} for
any relationship, realized or not. The issue that comes up
often is about {nu} and whether or not it should apply only
to things that happen in the sense that mlatu applies only
to things that are cats.

> but I think I've also talked about si'o as the neutral,
> least restrictive featured abstraction,

Isn't that {su'u}? What do you mean by "featured"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months 
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup