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

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> > I am not commenting on the lo'e/le'e construal because I agree
> > with it completely.
>
> With whose version, and if with And's, can you explain it, please?

I doubt I could make a better job of it than he did, I found
his exposition clear enough.

>  (The last
> round he said that {lo'e broda} was abstract

Is {lo'e broda}, construed as "the typical", abstract? I think
the prototype/myopic-singular is as abstract or not as is the typical.
I have no problem with {lo'e tanxe cu dacti}, "boxes are material
objects", and I suppose you wouldn't object to saying that "the
typical box is a material object", so are they material objects
or are they abstract? On the other hand, there certainly is
abstraction going on when thinking of the generic/prototype/
myopically singular box, as much as in thinking of the average
box.

> but did not have properties that
> no broda had!)

I think it can have properties that no broda has by itself.
For example, we can talk about it when not talking about
any broda by itself.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp