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

Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro


la and cusku di'e


It seems to me that we might all be able to agree on this for once and
for all:

1. Contrary to what Woldy says,
    ro broda cu brode
 = ro da poi broda cu brode
 = ro da ga na broda gi brode
This would require a correction to 16.8 or wherever it is that Woldy says
these mean different things.

2. The universe is not empty.

If we can agree on these two things -- & nobody has spoken out against
either of them -- then won't that allow this debate to evaporate into
irrelevance and inconsequentiality?


2 is not really needed for either position. 1 is our position,
but pc has always spoken out against it. He does not approve
of {ro broda cu brode = ro da ga na broda gi brode}, and I am
convinced we will never reach an agreement about this.

I once offered a salomonic compromise: leave the importingness
of ro/no/su'o/me'i[ro] ambiguous, and use roma'u/noma'u/su'oma'u
/me'ima'u for the importing quantifiers and roni'u/noni'u/
su'oni'u/me'ini'u for the non-importing ones when you want
to emphasize the distinction. This means that everyone gets to
use their favourite importingness unmarked, and whenever there
is a possibility of confusion (hardly ever) there is always
the possibility of being precise either way.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963