RE: [lojban] Cmavo to never use

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

Rob:
> (in response to http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9411/msg00275.html)
>
> I disagree that {la'i} is useless. Things that might share other
> characteristics because of sharing a name would be _objects_ that are named.
>
> {le karce vecnu pu vecnu la'i porc.} - The car salesman sold a set of
> Porsches.

Assuming that you are naming each car "porc", then if the salesman sold
them together, collectively, then he sold lai porc, while if they sold
them separately then he sold la porc.

> In fact, because of this, I think that there should be a {la} equivalent to
> {lo'e} and {le'e}. Using xa'e for this purpose (is it used already?) you could
> say something like {xa'e pakrd. bel. poi skami cu spofu} - "The typical
> Packard Bell computer is broken."

You'd be much better off making a lujvo or fu'ivla for Packard Bell than
using a name; cmene are a right pain in the arse. And then you wouldn't need
{xa'e}.

--And.