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

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 01:09:32 -0500

At 02:20 AM 11/10/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > Given your discussion, I would have thought that {la odisix} (yuck,
> > ptui!) would have been the perfect thing for the prototytpe and {me
> > la odisix} for "is a version of the Odyssey," so {lo me la odisix}
> > for "a version of the Odyssey" You want an individual for the
> > prototype and this is as close as you can get to that, and {me} is
> > just about perfect for "is a version of." Only {lai} could look
> > better than {la}, and there I fear we may have oversold the
> > mass-prototype, so that simple prototypes can't work anymore (without
> > a lot of reeducation -- which And might better be doing than trying
> > to make yet another prototype word in Lojban).
>
>{la odisix} is indeed the perfect thing, IMO, and {me la odisix}
>for versions of it. But this is no good in the present discussion,
>because it fails to generalize to other generics. For example,
>knowing that the generic Odyssey is {la odisix} does not tell us
>how to refer to the generic lion. Hence it is important that Lojbab
>find a way to refer to the generic Odyssey using "cuktrodisi".

la cuktrodisi?

If it works for one kind of name, it should work for any other kind.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org