Subject: Re: [lojban] lo'e, le'e, tu'o

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:10:00 +0000

la and cusku di'e

>It seems to me that what is essentially
>going on in these exx -- and also generally with generic
>reference -- is that a category is being conceptualized as
>a single individual ("myopic singularization"). E.g. it is
>quite easy to think of Chocolate as a single individual,
>and "I like chocolate" means the same as "I like Chocolate".

Yes, definitely. I think "myopic sigularization" is a very
good description of what goes on. If you start from the point
of view of seeing the category in its extension, then {lo'e}
collapses the extension into one individual. If you start from
the intension, then {lo'e} simply blocks the move to the
extension. I don't think this conflicts with the description
in terms of the kairbroda predicates.

>So on this basis I understand your use of {lo'e} and agree
>with it. The question that remains in my mind is whether
>there is a difference between {lo'e broda} and {tu'o broda}.

I can't see any difference.

>BTW, this automatically gives us a useful meaning for
>{le'e} -- it would mean {(ro) le pa}.

Don't you mean {tu'o le tu'o}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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