Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

[Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:27:53PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> {reda kanla lo'e remna} sounds not quite right - it should be {lo'e remna cu 
> se kanla reda}.

Those mean the same thing.

> {reda kanla ro remna} is definitely false, even if there were 
> not blind people - it means that everyone shares two eyes!

Very good point - however, I think this is not the fault of {ro}, but of
{da}.

The first version could just as easily have been said with {rezu'i kanla
lo'e remna}. Similarly, if you wanted to forget the existence of blind
people, you should say {rezu'i kanla ro remna}.

I think the misuse of {da} to mean "something", without considering the
logical implications, is much more dangerous than using the wrong
article. I'd say about half the time someone says {da} they really mean
{zu'i}.

-- 
la rab.spir
noi sarji zo gumri