On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Minimiscience
<minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
I just used it because it's the default {gadri}. If you're learning Lojban via
either *Lojban for Beginners* or *{la lojban. mo}/What is Lojban?*, both of
these (last time I checked) describe the {gadri} ("{lo}," "{le}," "{la}," and
some other uncommon ones) as they were specified in *The Complete Lojban
Language* in 1997. However, in 2004, the definition of "{lo}" was changed from
"a thing which truly is..." to "a thing associated with...". Along with the
other minor changes made to the {gadri} at the same time, you can find more
information on this at
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How+to+use+xorlo>. As a
result, "{lo}" is now the preferred {gadri} to use whenever in doubt, and it is
always acceptable to use "{lo}" wherever "{le}" can be used.
This is interesting. I've been learning out of Lojban for Beginners (with some supplements, mostly dictionaries), and I found "le" to be a bit more vague than it could have been there. From what I see there, now I see that lo is evidently quite a bit more vague even than le was before...just at a glance I don't think I like it quite as much this way as the other way. The main problem with lo that I had before was the "lo <number> <sumti>..." meaning "one or more of the <number> <sumti> in the universe...", which seems to be gone.
Thank you for that anyway (although I have actually seen that already in fishing around on the mailing list).
The definition of {fanmo} is "x1 is an end/finish/termination of thing/process
x2", i.e., its x2 can be either a process or a thing, which is what {lo ckule}
is.
I suppose then the idea that "a thing ends" is being a problem in my head. Even trying to strip the layers of English it seems odd.
However, I do see that with the changes to lo, lo ... se fanmo makes sense. It still doesn't get to everything in "is closed", but I don't know if anything really will without way too much detail.
mu'omi'e latros.