[lojban] Re: Again {lo}.

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

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Well, without more context I would almost
> certainly interpret it in the
> adage sense, just as I would interpret a
> tensless sentence out of
> context in an atemporal sense. It requires a
> much stronger context to
> interpret it as "some dog will be, two days
> from now and for a duration
> of 37 minutes, best friend to some human." It
> could eventually mean 
> that, but it's highly unlikely.
> 
So it all comes down to style (in this particular
case at least -- though the general claim about
{lo} seems to be more). I automatically take
unmarked cases as particular and past tense
(maybe present).  This habit, which in the case
of {lo} was embodied in the old sense  -- may
account for our differences in the two readings:
whether they are about all the critters and then
be satisfied with chunks or about some of the
critters and then require all of those.