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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:57:07 EST

In a message dated 11/1/2001 5:28:48 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> How did prototype chat move from {loi}, where it lived for a couple 
> >decades,
> >to {lo'e}?
> 
> I think it was when collective chat took over {loi}.
> 

I would have thought that was enough to get rid of Mr. Rabbit for once and 
all. Wrong, I suppose. It's a cute picture, but doesn't seem to ahve any 
intereting content. Thanks for the explanation though.

<The correspondence with Loglan goes something like this:

Lojban: lo   le   loi("mass")  lo'e         lo'i("set")
Loglan: --   le   leu("set")   lo("mass")   ----

Loglan doesn't need Lojban {lo} because it uses bare quantifiers
for that (Lojban does this too, so we don't really need it either).>

This assumes a certain reading of {lo}; is it guaranteed? (So many things 
have been put up for grabs lately, it is wise to check -- though xorxes may 
not be the right one to ask, being a major putter-upper).

<In Loglan "sets" can carry logs, in Lojban "masses" do this.>

Oh dear, did that one finally win out? Pity (but dead, so no harm done).

<Loglan's "mass" is Mr Rabbit, which corresponds to Lojban's {lo'e}.>
Did that one win finally too -- more pity. Happily the claim is not 
establsihed (to put it mildly) for Lojban.

<Loglan is blessed by not having a gadri for mathematical sets.>
Strange blessing, to get rid of the one gadri we know anything solid about -- 
and the one all the others depend on.

<{le} is the same for both.>
True enough, and aren't we beginning to see (even more) reasons to regret it.