Re: [lojban] video about lo & le

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Attempt to lay out the whole 
record: http://pckipo.blogspot.com/2010/10/articles-in-logjam.html


----- Original Message ----
From: Brian Shannon <teapot.philosopher@googlemail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 8:07:55 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] video about lo & le

> I was referring to the fact that...and not to,
> well, basically any of what you just said. In particular, my use of the word
> ...wherein the...problem you mentioned is not occurring.
But it *can* occur and so a distinction must be made. Any attempt to
represent "lo" and "le" as if they directly correspond with the
English "a" and "the" is malglico.

Simplest possible accurate translation imo (incorrectly assuming
singular for simplicity):
lo = that which really is
le = what I have in mind and describe as

When you use this translation for a short while, it becomes quick and
easy to understand the actual meaning behind each word without having
to read it like above.

-- 
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.


      

-- 
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.