Re: [lojban] Re: Again {lo}.

[robin <robin@bilkent.edu.tr>]

John E Clifford wrote:
> Unfortunately, it can be argued that {lo'e} means
> something different from the generalization that
> was intended using {lo}.  Just what the
> difference is is not too clear, though {le'e}
> pretty clearly brings in a subjective factor
> absent from the others.

If we're talking about baseline {lo}, the difference is obvious. If I 
have understood xorlo correctly, the new {lo} makes no claims about what 
it precedes - it's the gadri equivalent of {pe}. In that case, the 
difference is simply that {lo'e} is more specific.

In the baseline usage, {lo gerku cu pendu lo remna} means "There is at 
least one thing that is actually a dog, that is a friend to one thing 
that is actually a human." The proposed new usage gives us something 
like (in Pidgin Chinese-proverb style) "dog friend man." I rather like 
this, but it is (intentionally) vague. It's not a generalisation, since 
that would be "Most dogs are friends to most men." It *could* mean that, 
but it doesn't have to. Using {lo'e} is simply more precise.

robin.tr

--
"I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to 
understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language 
devised for telling one another where the best fruit is." -- Terry Pratchett


Robin Turner
IDMYO
Bilkent Universitesi
Ankara 06533
Turkey

www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin