Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:08:14 +0000

la and cusku di'e

>It seems to me that we might all be able to agree on this for once and
>for all:
>
>1. Contrary to what Woldy says,
> ro broda cu brode
> = ro da poi broda cu brode
> = ro da ga na broda gi brode
>This would require a correction to 16.8 or wherever it is that Woldy says
>these mean different things.
>
>2. The universe is not empty.
>
>If we can agree on these two things -- & nobody has spoken out against
>either of them -- then won't that allow this debate to evaporate into
>irrelevance and inconsequentiality?

2 is not really needed for either position. 1 is our position,
but pc has always spoken out against it. He does not approve
of {ro broda cu brode = ro da ga na broda gi brode}, and I am
convinced we will never reach an agreement about this.

I once offered a salomonic compromise: leave the importingness
of ro/no/su'o/me'i[ro] ambiguous, and use roma'u/noma'u/su'oma'u
/me'ima'u for the importing quantifiers and roni'u/noni'u/
su'oni'u/me'ini'u for the non-importing ones when you want
to emphasize the distinction. This means that everyone gets to
use their favourite importingness unmarked, and whenever there
is a possibility of confusion (hardly ever) there is always
the possibility of being precise either way.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963