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

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 23:46:55 -0000

Lojbab:
> >{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.

Well, yes, you can use a cmene, any cmene, to refer to the generic
Odyssey. When I said "it is important that Lojbab find a way to 
refer to the generic Odyssey using "cuktrodisi"", what I meant was 
"it is important that Lojbab find an expression that denotes the 
generic Odyssey and uses "cuktrodisi"". "la cuktrodisi" means "that 
which I am calling 'cuktrodisi'/'Odyssey'", not "that which is the 
generic Odyssey". Similarly, "la cinfo" means "that which I am 
calling 'cinfo'/'lion'", not "the generic lion".

--And.