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

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Jorge:
> 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.

Great!
 
> >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.

Nor me. I guess that lo'e/le'e explicitly say "myopic singularization
is going on here", whereas tu'o says "there's no quantification
going on here, & it's up to you to infer why (i.e. because it
would be redundant)".

> >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}?

Outer quantifier could just as well be tu'o, yes, as per my
above remarks. The inner one, though, is the cardinality
specifier, and I'm not sure what tu'o would mean as a cardinality
specification.

--And.