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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 22:20:09 EST

In a message dated 11/10/2001 5:49:39 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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 
> 
Why? (or rather Why not?) It certainly can mean that, and, indeed, {la 
cinfo} seems a wonderflly clear way to say that (well, not "the generic 
lion", as I would understand that, but "the prototype lion" as I understand 
And's view). In any case, we cannot decide what any of these gadri means in 
isolation, since all these systems involve the interrelation of parts. So, 
the crucial question would be How are {le cinfo} and {le mela cinfo} related, 
for example -- or, to return to the original problem (where the 
appropriateness of {la} is even clearer), {le cuktrodisi} and {le mela 
odisix}. 
It seems odd for And, perpetual rejector and re"condstruer" of list glosses 
to suddenly wax excessively literal on this particular reading, especially 
since it seems to fit so well withwith what he wants, even when read ina 
casually literal way.