[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e



In a message dated 11/1/2001 5:28:48 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


How did prototype chat move from {loi}, where it lived for a couple
>decades,
>to {lo'e}?

I think it was when collective chat took over {loi}.


I would have thought that was enough to get rid of Mr. Rabbit for once and all.  Wrong, I suppose.  It's a cute picture, but doesn't seem to ahve any intereting content.  Thanks for the explanation though.

<The correspondence with Loglan goes something like this:

Lojban: lo   le   loi("mass")  lo'e         lo'i("set")
Loglan: --   le   leu("set")   lo("mass")   ----

Loglan doesn't need Lojban {lo} because it uses bare quantifiers
for that (Lojban does this too, so we don't really need it either).>

This assumes a certain reading of {lo}; is it guaranteed? (So many things have been put up for grabs lately, it is wise to check -- though xorxes may not be the right one to ask, being a major putter-upper).

<In Loglan "sets" can carry logs, in Lojban "masses" do this.>

Oh dear, did that one finally win out?  Pity (but dead, so no harmdone).

<Loglan's "mass" is Mr Rabbit, which corresponds to Lojban's {lo'e}.>
Did that one win finally too -- more pity.  Happily the claim is not establsihed (to put it mildly) for Lojban.

<Loglan is blessed by not having a gadri for mathematical sets.>
Strange blessing, to get rid of the one gadri we know anything solid about -- and the one all the others depend on.

<{le} is the same for both.>
True enough, and aren't we beginning to see (even more) reasons to regret it.