From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Nov 26 08:39:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 26 Nov 2001 16:39:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 93160 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2001 16:39:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Nov 2001 16:39:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2001 16:39:24 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:15:17 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:53:03 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:52:42 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] lo'e and NAhEBO Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Greg: #coi rodo # #again I'm asking a question about lo'e: # l#et's say that the concept expressed by lo'e/le'e broda is that of the mod= e #of a set and call it "typical." Obviously, different positions on what lo'e/le'e mean will give you=20 different answers.=20 #is lo'e/le'e broda "one or more of all the things that are typical brode"/ #"all of the at least one thing I'm calling a typical brode"? No. That's "lo fadni broda"/"le fadni broda". #so lo'e ropno bangu =3D English or French or German or Spanish (or Italian= ) #and le'e ropno bangu =3D SAE SAE comes close to {lo'e ropno bangu} for people on either side of the debates.=20 #My second question: why is it that the refgram makes a big deal of NAhEBO #(It certainly made a big impression on me) but it is almost never used. Am= I #wrong in thinking that na'ebo le broda is the same as le na'e broda? You're definitely wrong about that. I *think* (without checking refgram)=20 that {na'e bo le broda} =3D {lo na du be le broda}.=20 As to why it doesn't get used, if indeed it doesn't, I can't think of any g= ood uses for it in ordinary contexts. Without having checked any texts, I would guess that actual uses of it may tend to be errors where {na} was meant. --And.