Re: [lojban] Re: {le} in xorlo

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

And Rosta wrote:
> What *is* relevant to discussion on Lojban 
> list is the simple recognition that because Lojban fails goals (b) and 
> (c) of logical-languagehood, it is unreasonable to insist on 
> logical-languagehood being a continuing Lojban design goal in the 
> specification of the the mission of the BPFK.

Which is one reason that has not been part of the mission of the BPFK. 
Their mission is to define the language that is.

It should be up to Lojbanists of the future if there is to be a LoCCan3

> "zo'e'e" would be a KOhA pointing to a specific thing.

Actually, I think ko'a itself and its relatives do, but they presume 
that someone has specified with ko'a means with goi.

(I think) no one has ever decided what using "ko'a voi broda" means, 
where ko'a is unassigned, but it would seem to me to be equivalent to 
(the old, if not necessarily the xorlo) "le broda", barring the need to 
express quantification explicitly (i.e. le ci broda")

> Communicatively you can manage without it by 
> using "le du" instead. The rationale for "zo'e'e" was in the context of 
> the suggested formal periphrastic definitions of gadri in terms of KOhA 
> NOI constructions.

If you can manage it with something else, why propose a different 
definition?  Someone is looking to add elegance to what apparently 
already works, when elegance wasn't necessarily something we were trying 
for (as opposed to packing as many critical distinctions as possible 
into as few words as possible, where there is disagreement now as to 
what distinctions are critical, but there wasn't in 1988).

lojbab

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.