RE: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution?

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

Jorge:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >OK. But if we had some way to talk about intensional categories
> >(such that the class of goers is not the same thing as {J, P, M}),
> >then our problem would be solved.
> 
> I think {lo'e} and {le'e} are the intensional gadri.

Before we consider whether {mi djuno lo'e/le'e klama} is a feasible
alternative to Q-kau, we need to establish that {lo'e cinfo
cu xabji lo friko} or, to be clearer, {lo'e square has 4 sides},
are nonsensical, because obviously the "known by me" part has
to be outside the intension.

> >How about -- I'm just
> >floating this to see how it fares -- replacing {ma kau} with
> >{ce'u}? Does this result in gross illogicalities, or in sentences
> >which would then have competing interpretations?
> 
> Yes. All those that use both ce'u and makau, as in {frica le ka
> makau viska ce'u} vs {frica le ka ce'u viska makau}.

This is a case of "how then would we say it", rather than of gross
illogicalities or competing interpretations.

--And.