Re: On {lo} and existence

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> My intention is that dahi(nai) is not defined by the existence of
> an imaginer or restrictable by the identity of an imaginer. "Imaginary"
> is simply the complement of "real".

I guess this takes us too much into metaphysics. Is there such a thing
as a language independently of its users? You seem to like to think
that there is, I tend to think not, at least right now. Lojban seems
to favour my point of view, given that bangu has an x2 place... :)

Jorge