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

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:30:25 +0000

The reason why I can't accept that la has a role in all of this is that
there is no determinate route from a "la" sumti to its referent. "la cinfo"
could refer to absolutely anything, while "le/lo/lei/loi/lo'e/le'e cinfo"
must refer to something intimately associated with lionhood.

I had thought you were disputing that -- hence my objection that
you quote. But I now gather that you accept this point, in which
case hopefully we can agree to reformulate my question as
"How do we refer to the play Hamlet without using cmene (or
selmaho LA)?". Or alternatively, "What non-LA gadri do we 
add to "me la xamlet" to make it coreferential with "la xamlet?"
The intention is that the answer will then generalize to other
categories, such as Cinfo.

--And.

>>> <[email-masked]> 11/11/01 11:08pm >>>
In a message dated 11/11/2001 2:17:59 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> But that is not how things are, and it is
> frustrating that attempts to progress our understanding are 
> answered with attempts to demolish what there had hitherto been
> consensus about.
> 

My sentiments exactly, but odd coming from you, a master perpetrator. 
Still my point -- which you essentially endorse in the your letter to AshyAsp 
-- is that what a gadri means in a particular context depends in part on how 
it interacts with other expressions in tha context. Properly used, {la 
odisix} makes a great prototype (aside from the name chosen) when used with 
{mela} and other expressions to make the point. The gadri only give 
patterns, not content, so they work fine for all the various things that 
different metaphysicians want them for -- if thye are arranged carefully.