Subject: [lojban] Re: lo'edu'u

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:54:02 -0800

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:23:47PM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
[snip]
> Is this tinkering? Is this casuistry? Is this pedantry? No,
> lojbanists. This is Lojban. The minute you let {lo'e} into the
> language alongside {le}, and {du'u} alongside {nu}, you create a
> distinction. If you ignore that distinction, you are misusing Lojban,
> as surely as if you say {re} instead of {pa}. English uses 'that' for
> {lenu}, {lo'enu}, {lo'edu'u}, {loisu'u}, and any number of other
> possibilities. Lojban requires a distinction. {le} presupposes you can
> count the referents. {nu} presupposes the referent is an event. If you
> always say {lenu} where you should be saying {lo'edu'u} instead,
> you're just calquing 'that'. You're not thinking Lojbanically. And if
> you wanted English...
[snip]

Dude, that *ROCKED*[1]. I can't wait to see Lojban For Intermediates if
it's going to contain clear, precise, easy-to-understand stuff like that
post.

-Robin

[1]: .i'ecai

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
.i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu
.i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai
http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi