Re: [lojban] lo'e, le'e, tu'o

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

la and cusku di'e

> It seems to me that what is essentially
> going on in these exx -- and also generally with generic
> reference -- is that a category is being conceptualized as
> a single individual ("myopic singularization"). E.g. it is
> quite easy to think of Chocolate as a single individual,
> and "I like chocolate" means the same as "I like Chocolate".

Yes, definitely. I think "myopic sigularization" is a very
good description of what goes on. If you start from the point
of view of seeing the category in its extension, then {lo'e}
collapses the extension into one individual. If you start from
the intension, then {lo'e} simply blocks the move to the
extension. I don't think this conflicts with the description
in terms of the kairbroda predicates.

> So on this basis I understand your use of {lo'e} and agree
> with it. The question that remains in my mind is whether
> there is a difference between {lo'e broda} and {tu'o broda}.

I can't see any difference.

> BTW, this automatically gives us a useful meaning for
> {le'e} -- it would mean {(ro) le pa}.

Don't you mean {tu'o le tu'o}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com