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

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:54:16

la adam cusku di'e

>la .and. cusku di'e
>
> > I gave the example as false statement, in contrast to {re da kanla
> > lo'e remna}, which is true.
>
>Really? Which two things? Are they both a "lo'e kanla"? I assume that
>the "archetypal" human (or whatever lo'e turns out to mean) must
>have "archetypal" eyes. (He certainly can't have real eyes.) But his
>two eyes can't be the same "archetypal" eye. Could his two eyes be re
>lo'e kanla?

{re lo'e kanla} doesn't make sense, there is only one {lo'e kanla}.

The easy way out is to say {lo'e remna cu relyselkanla}.

Otherwise I think you have to say:

lo'e kanla reroi kanla lo'e remna
The Eye eyes the Human twice.

if we don't want to repeat {kanla}, we could go with:

lo'e du reroi kanla lo'e remna

and then maybe:

zo'e reroi kanla lo'e remna

Could {zo'e} be defined perhaps as {lo'e du}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp