[lojban-beginners] Re: lo nanmu poi na va

[Matt Arnold <mattarn@123.net>]

When we want to be specific about singular/plural do we have to use number words? I have never understood gadri and I feel more confused about them now than before.
Let me offer some more examples. I am translating an article describing a progressive religious movement.* At one point I want to say "All meaning and purpose are understood through personal reason and observation rather than second-hand testimony." {.i fi piro lo te vajni .e lo mukti cu jimpe ma'i lo seni'ikri .e lo nu zgana seba'i lo se sitna} I didn't want to say a particular reasoning, observation, or quote sources, just anything that would qualify as such. Is this the sort of thing for which {lo} is needed, for which {le} would not serve?
-Matt

* (Slightly off topic, how the heck do I translate the adjective "naturalistic," in the sense of no supernatural realm?)

lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org wrote:
>la epcat cu cusku di'e
>> I keep having to get used to the change from CLL, where {lo} 
>> means "the really is" and {le} means "the described as." If I 
>> understand correctly from the wiki's BPFK Section: gadri, I 
>> think {lo nanmu} now means "any of the things that are a man" 
>> and {le nanmu} now means "a particular man I have in mind."
>
>I think those mean the same thing; the wording may merely be confusing.
>Using {lo} asserts that something really is an X; using {le} asserts that
>there is something specific which you will call an X but need not be an X.
>(For example, a drag queen might be a {le ninmu} but not a {lo ninmu}.)
>
>Either is non-specific with respect to number; {lo nanmu} is something like
>"one or more of the one or more things that are men" while {le nanmu} is
>"all of those (one or more) whom I am thinking of and whom I will describe
>as 'men'".
>
>mu'o mi'e .filip.

_______________________________________________________
Sent through e-mol. E-mail, Anywhere, Anytime. http://www.e-mol.com