Re: [lojban] Three more issues

["michael helsem" <graywyvern@hotmail.com>]

> From: biomass@hobbiton.org
    li'o
> Without using sets, how can "There are many rats" be said? (The book
> says it as <le'i ratcu cu barda>

ratcu so'imei

> Issue B:
> As I understand lujvo, any lujvo may be defined *W/O* tanru
          li'o

Good point, but the two canonical kinds do not exhaust the
possibilities. For instance, a BRODA BRODE lujvo can also
represent BRODE LE BRODA. (Or even BRODE FO LE BRODA.)

> Issue B.1:
      li'o
> there is no true way to understand
> lujvo from there definition, only get a clue.

usage will decide. LE CAKCINKI & LO'E CAKCINKI aren't
replacements for Linnaean fu'ivla anyway. there's a million
kinds of beetle!

> Issue C:
> Since tanru are (very) semantically ambiguous, how can we allow
> ourselves to define language concepts using tanru (e.g. <sumti tcita>,
> <se steci srana>, etc? Those would mean extremely 'wide' concepts!

using the lujvo from the start would have been a better idea, as
in BRIVLA & FU'IVLA, but it's easier for a neophyte to figure out a tanru.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com