[lojban] Re: loglan/lojban masses/sets

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- Rob Speer <rspeer@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> But you've said that the new "lo" is supposed to be an empty gadri.
> (This is a much more reassuring explanation than talking about Mr.
> Broda, incidentally.) Why does it need to replace "lo'e", then? "lo'e"
> can specifically talk about the general kind of object, while "lo" is
> just vague about it.

lo has fully replaced lo'e in my current usage. I have not found 
any need yet for a more specific lo'e-meaning. I believe at this
point that lo and le are all the gadri we need, but if people want
more specialized meanings in addition, I'm not opposed, as long as
we are not forced to make distinctions we don't require. It's like 
the event types pu'u/za'i/zu'o/mu'e (I had to look them up, I 
couldn't even remember the words!) I just don't find any use for 
them, but I have to learn them because some people do like using 
them. 

> And if "lo" is really defined to be an empty gadri, that doesn't
> invalidate any usage at all. 

At worst it makes it vaguer than intended. 

> "lo finpe cu tolcitrai lo mabru" could mean
> "Fish are older than mammals" or "some fish are older than some
> mammals", and the sentence would be clarified by changing "lo" to "lo'e"
> or "su'o".

Well, in the right context it could mean that some fish
are older than some mammals, just like {mi klama le zarci}
can in some context mean that I went at least once to the
market. But out of context those readings are unlikely.
Without context, the more general reading is the more likely.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover