RE: Re: [jboske] lo'e

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

Adam:
> de'i li 2002-10-24 ti'u li 13:24:00 la xorxes. cusku di'e
> 
> >>On the other hand, as I understand it, while 'broda lo'e brode' doesn't
> >>imply that 'broda lo brode', 'broda lo brode' does imply that 'broda
> >>lo'e brode' 
> >
> >I think there is no _logical_ implication, but I agree there
> >is often some kind of implication. In other words, {su'o da
> >zo'u broda tu'o du'u da brode} does not logically entail
> >{broda tu'o du'u su'o da zo'u da brode} 
> 
> I'm not sure if there's a logical implication, but there's at least 
> an implication in the same sense that, e.g. 'x debates jboske' 
> implies that 'x is at least 3 years old', 

Only a slight exaggeration. IIRC Greg is about 16 and Rob about 18.

> and so 'mi nelci lo'ei cakla' is far too general to be useful in 
> translating 'I like chocolate.'

Yes. It's really useful for "I need chocolate", though.

> At this point I think I would still like to 
> use 'lo'e' for 'I like chococate', so I will search for another 
> formalization of the meaning; And's looks more or less promising, and 
> it also has the effect of giving a useful and o-gadri/e-gadri-like 
> distinction between lo'e/loi'e and le'e/lei'e 

I'm glad of this, but it would be possible to define a le'ei counterpart
to lo'ei -- xorxes and I were discussing it yesterday. 

> BTW, the book explicitly states that le'e is based on le'i just like 
> lo'e is based on lo'i, so I don't know where And got the idea that 
> the book's definition of le'e is not consistent with its being an 
> e-gadri. 

If {le'e} = "the stereotypical", then it is not the e-gadri counterpart
of {lo'e}.

> Actually, looking it up, p. 126 (ch. 6 sec. 5) says: "The 
> relationship between "lo'e cinfo" and "lo'i cinfo" may be explained 
> thus: the typical lion is an imaginary lion-abstraction which best 
> exemplifies the set of lions. There is a similar relationship between 
> "le'e" and "le'i"." So it seems that And has restated CLL's 
> definition of of lo'e and le'e, but gone one step towards solving the 
> problem of imaginary things being in a regular relationship with real 
> things 

This is good news. 

The way They got to "stereotypical" must have been thus:

lo'e = x really is the typical exemplar of lo'i
le'e = x is described as the typical exemplar of lo'i

But of course it should instead be:

le'e = x really is the typical exemplar of le'i 

--And.