On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 4:05 PM, 'John E. Clifford' via lojban
<lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Interesting, given the arduous history of 'lo'. Assuming that 'zo'e' is here used in the sense of "the contextually specified thing", which is a change
(restriction) from CLL, this 'lo' no longer does the job that led to the argument for its acceptance, since 'lo broda cu broda' is now a tautology, unless I've missed something crucial. 'lo broda' was meant, in most stages of the argument, including the last (I thought) to cover the semantic range of English "a broda", "the broda", "brodas" and "broda" in the non definite senses. But at least the last of these may
include in the referent of 'lo broda' things which are not broda in any sense, but rather, for example, broda bits.
If broda bits don't broda, they shouldn't be referred to as "lo broda", no. But whether broda bits broda or not depends on context and the meaning of "broda", not on "lo".
(There was broda all
over my bumper after I plowed into a herd of brodas.)
If "lo broda cu preja lo do karcybandu" then I would say that "lo preja be lo do karcybandu cu broda", yes.
This possibility comes
out in the technical definition of 'lo broda' as the salient node in the upward
lattice of the field of jest (me) on the set of brodas (in the domain). Of course, this possibility does also rely on there not being any absolute individuals, since me here extends below things which are brodas (individual brodas still have members, they just aren't brodas).
So we agree that there are no absolute individuals, just contextual ones.>>