Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:44:04 -0400 (EDT)

Jorge Llambias scripsit:

> >So {viska lo'e boa} does make sense. Different from {viska lo boa}?
> 
> To the extent that it would allow for personal visions, yes.
> In normal circumstances, {viska lo'e sincrboa} should require
> {viska lo sincrboa}. But this is because of the meaning of
> {viska}, not because of the meaning of {lo'e sincrboa}.

I find the concept "viska lo'e co'e" a bit disturbing, unless it were
construed as "seeing something which has visual features typical of X",
which would be yet a further extension of "lo'e". (Or would it?)

> The abstract generics that can't be seen are not referred to
> here. lo'e sincrboa ka'e se viska, boas can be seen.

That which can be seen has a color, but what is the color of lo'e sincrbo'a?

-- 
John Cowan [email-masked] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
"The exception proves the rule". Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves
my theory." Classicists think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts the
rule to the proof." But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an
exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."