Re: [jboske] lo/le definition

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 12:17 PM 1/8/03 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group wrote:
> > Nora observes that since the ultimate definition of lo broda and le broda
> > pertains to things that fill the x1 of broda, and since for various broda,
> > the x1 place is expressed as individuals, sets, masses, and what have you,
> > then le/lo manifestly MUST be ambiguous amongst those meanings, regardless
> > of the specified default quantifiers and what people have deduced from the
> > assignment of such quantifiers.
>
>
> This is a strange argument. Who says that lo broda must be meaningful for
> any conceivable sumti place?


Well "lo xe munje" isn't meaningful, but if a place actually is defined in 
a place structure then the "lo SE broda corresponding to that place is any 
referent that can veridically fill the place".

lojbab

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org