[lojban] Re: Again {lo}.

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- robin <robin@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote:
 
> 
> I hadn't been following the proposed changes to
> {lo}, but they seem 
> sensible. We need something that simply says
> "the following is a sumti" 
> in a similar way that {cu} says "the following
> is a selbri". I'm usually 
> a conservative when it comes to baseline
> issues, but the baseline {lo} 
> was such a monumental pain for newbies, I
> wouldn't mind seeing it modified.

Well, I disagree about the sensibleness of the
changes, but might not if they were clarified. 
Today (though not yesterday) it seems that {lo}
covers all cases -- or at least all cases that
are not specific (or is it definite?) and not
collectives or sets.  And of course it does and
always has, so that is not the change in hand
(newby problems seem always to be with {le}
actually).  But what is it really? It is either a
big to-do about nothing at all or it is so
muddled as to amount to nothing all in the way of
a usable notion.  (I would be particularly
interested today in a clarification of the
difference between {lo broda} and {su'o lo broda}
which appear to be materially equivalent (and
indeed to have the same meaning since I haven't
seen a case where one yields truth and the other
falsehood).  Or are they just stylistic
difference raised to message carrying?
 
> Even though, my point above remains. Under the
> orthodox version of {lo}, 
> {lo'e gerku cu pendo lo'e remna} implies {lo
> gerku cu pendo lo remna} 
> but not vice versa, and the situation is
> unchanged with xorlo. If you 
> want to say "the dog is man's best friend" and
> not simply "some dog(s) 
> is/are some man/men's best friend(s)", then
> {lo'e} is the way you want 
> to go.
> 
> robin.tr
> 
> 
> 
>