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

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

>>> <pycyn@aol.com> 10/29/01 09:43pm >>>
#jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
#> I am not commenting on the lo'e/le'e construal because I agree
#> with it completely.
#
#With whose version, and if with And's, can you explain it, please?  (The last 
#round he said that {lo'e broda} was abstract but did not have properties that 
#no broda had!) 

My mistake, if I said that. No, I don't think {lo'e broda} is abstract on the 
construal I proposed for it.

--And.