On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:34:00AM +0300, Robin Turner wrote:
> Jordan DeLong wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:41:02PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
[...]
> >>le du cu frili
> >>
> >>-- where "le du" might here refer to the act of giving an example text in
> >>Lojban.
> >
> >
> >How does {le du} (something like the thing which I describe as being
> >equal to some thing(s) (which are obviously itself, because they
> >are equal to it...)) differ from {le co'e}?
> >
> >(That is, aside from being more esoteric).
> >
> >It seems to me like they are the same, except that {le co'e} is
> >more "honest" (for lack of a better word).
> >
> >Of course, in *real* usage, in a case where the referent wasn't
> >recently mentioned, you'd probably say "zo'e". (If it were mentioned,
> >you'd use zo'e or ri/ra/ru/lerfu).
> >
> I can't see the point in using zo'e in the first place - if it's
> obvious, leave it blank.
Leaving it blank counts as using zo'e.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00510.pgp
Description: PGP signature