Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?

[la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:09:08 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:

Well, yes, anaphora is one of those places where Lojban falls short, so an ideal loglang would handle it differently.  But that doesn't seem to be directly relevant here, *{da'au} isn't being used anaphorically here

True. Although it can be used in anaphorical way as in natlangs. Which would of course lead to the same ambiguity as in "Mike saw John. He hit him". And of course I agree that {my.} and {jy.} can work better even if such trick is not used in your native language.

And of course I'm not serious of really using these three new cmavo. (Although who knows, foi'V are useful but who remembers about them now?)

, nor in the various versions of "we" ,which does not always include the notion, or indeed the second person either -- salience again.  We are the salient group who is speaking through the utterance of one of us.

Sent from my iPad

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.