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

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:59:49 +0000

>>> <[email-masked]> 10/29/01 09:43pm >>>
[email-masked] writes:
#> I am not commenting on the lo'e/le'e construal because I agree
#> with it completely.
#
#With whose version, and if with And's, can you explain it, please? (The last 
#round he said that {lo'e broda} was abstract but did not have properties that 
#no broda had!) 

My mistake, if I said that. No, I don't think {lo'e broda} is abstract on the 
construal I proposed for it.

--And.