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

From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 01:26:17 -0500

On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 10:20:09PM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> 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).

You want {la} to mean "the prototype"? Recall that most people want to
use Lojban not for talking about Lojban, but for talking about other
things. {la cinfo} means "that which is named Lion", and it may very
well not be a lion. You'll just have to deal with the fact that names
don't fit anywhere into logic.

If my name were Bob Dole, I would be {la bab.dol.} but I would not be
the prototypical Bob Dole, and I would very much resent your effort to
make my name not refer to me anymore.

-- 
la rab.spir
noi na'e me la bab.dol