From rob@twcny.rr.com Fri Oct 26 19:09:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 27 Oct 2001 02:09:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 54964 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2001 02:09:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Oct 2001 02:09:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.177) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Oct 2001 02:09:44 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9R28kF13275 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 22:08:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 22:08:46 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15xIu9-0000lU-00 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 22:08:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 22:08:57 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Message-ID: <20011026220857.A2910@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 01:44:36AM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > I do want to wage war against excessive use of {le}. Doubtless it'll be > futile, but still it might be worthwhile. The problem is that people are > influenced by phonology when choosing 'default' forms, and hence 'le' and > 'lo' feel more default than lei/loi/le'e/lo'e. Yet for singleton categories, > 'le' and 'lo' are actually the least appropriate, involving redundant > quantification, and even lei/loi wrongly imply the relevance of a > distributive/collective distinction. So for singleton categories, le'e/lo'e > should be the default. At any rate, I myself will now be ditching {tu'odu'u} and > start using {lo'e du'u} instead. Thank you for ditching {tu'odu'u} - using tu'o as an article seems to be just a way to deliberately communicate nothing. I agree that {le} is overused, and I'm guilty of it myself - I tend to say {lenu} when I have no specific event(s) in mind, and actually mean {ronu}. I'm being more watchful for that now, and encourage others to do the same. -- la rab.spir noi sarji lo'e gumri