RE: lo'e (was: Re: [lojban] ce'u

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

Xod:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> 
> > I think that Jorge's conception of {lo'e} has always been incompatible
> > with {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko}. But {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko}
> > is objectionable, because it is prone to ambiguity. For example, we
> > can discuss the prototypical or archetypal lion, without it then
> > being the case that non-atypical lions have been discussed by us.
> > Gadri + sumti tail is simply not the right way to do archetypes; it
> > clearly calls for some sort of bridi abstraction, such that xabju
> > le friko would be within the abstraction, while "discussed by us"
> > would be outside.
> 
> Please follow up this suggestion with the appropriate gismu to stick in
> su'u2 to achieve the desired result!

I don't know how su'u x1 and x2 are supposed to work, and nor do I know
how to implement what I argued for above. However, very tentatively,
and intuitively, I could start the ball rolling with this:

   tu'o si'o cinfo kei se su'u ce'u xabju le friko

as a way of saying that the archetypal lion archetypally-has the
property of living in Africa. As for "We discussed the archetypal lion",
I don't know. Maybe 

   mi'a simxu tu'o du'u ce'u ce'u tavla loi su'u be tu'o si'o cinfo

All this is just a first stab, and there to be improved on.

--And.