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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Brockman <dbrockman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What I meant was just that I consider {to'e broda} to be more
> or less a completely new predicate (for any {broda}).

You mean like:

cirko: x1 loses x2 at x3
to'e cirko: x1 finds x2 at x3

canci: x1 vanishes from x2
to'e canci: x1 appears at x2

If someone thinks of to'e as meaning un-, this doesn't work very well,
because In English un- doesn't just mean opposite, it means more like
undo, so in order to "un-lose"something, it first has to be lost, in
order for something to "un-vanish" it first has to have vanished. But
"to'e" is just opposite, not undoing, so the opposite of losing is
finding and the opposite of vanishing is appearing, and there is no
requirement that the thing found had to be lost or the thing that
appears had to have disappeared.

(The odd thing about these two words in particular is that the
"negative" one is the basic root and the "positive" one has to be
formed with "to'e", but that's how it is.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.