Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:57:38 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] scripsit:

> cowan:
> <(iii) Man(kind) speaks six thousand languages. (true)
> (iv) Man speaks six thousand languages. (false)
> (v) A man speaks six thousand languages. (false)>
> 
> What does iv mean? It is not (as it normally would be) iii and can hardly be 
> v.

It's lo'e remna, something that English can't well express for this
particular concept. Typical members of our species don't speak 6000 lgs;
indeed, none of them do, which is what (v) says.

> pier:
> <{reda kanla lo'e remna} sounds not quite right - it should be {lo'e remna cu 
> se kanla reda}. >
> 
> What is the quantifier on {lo'e} that makes this exchange different? 

Lo'es are unique, pa lo'e pa, so I think this means the same either way.

-- 
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email-masked]
Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact,
at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door.
--sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan