John E Clifford wrote:
{lo ka ta pelxu} is clearly grammatical. the problem is that (like most
things that are grammatical) it doesn't make any obvious sense or,
perhaps, makes too many not very obvious senses. A property of worlds,
say, or a particular shade of yellow in this one or ... . How is it to
be avoided ? Allowing only {ce'u} after {ka}? And thus creating a new
word class --or two? Seems Draconian, when you can get by by just not
using it.
Be nice to know what version of xorlo Lojbab understands.
None of them. %^(I rely on xorxes having said that if I treat things as if it was still the old system, I will have no problems (though I might find the preference for "lo" over "le" to be odd. If that ceases to be true, then I won't understand, because no explanation of xorlo has never made any sense to me for more than a few minutes.
My own usage (which I admit is hardly enormous these days) hasn't changed much. Recognizing that most people use lo instead of le, I try to use lo more often when it seems to make sense; it is stylistic rather than correctness that dictates the choice. For me, veridicality is still the most salient feature of lo, and much of the time that is not my intent.
lojbab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.