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

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:55:54 +0000

la djan cusku di'e

>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 problem comes from trying to give a referent to {lo'e co'e}.
It doesn't have a referent. "viska lo'e co'e" does not claim that
there is something that is seen. (Normally, when you see something,
it is also the case that there is something seen, but {lo'e},
unlike {lo} makes no claim one way or the other about there being
something which is seen.)

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

I'm not an expert on boas, but I understand there is no one
color of boas, is there? Several colours can be "a" color of boas,
but probably none is _the_ color of boas.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com