Subject: Re: [lojban] Three more issues

From: "michael helsem" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:24:02

>From: [email-masked]
li'o
>Without using sets, how can "There are many rats" be said? (The book
>says it as <le'i ratcu cu barda>

ratcu so'imei

>Issue B:
>As I understand lujvo, any lujvo may be defined *W/O* tanru
li'o

Good point, but the two canonical kinds do not exhaust the
possibilities. For instance, a BRODA BRODE lujvo can also
represent BRODE LE BRODA. (Or even BRODE FO LE BRODA.)

>Issue B.1:
li'o
>there is no true way to understand
>lujvo from there definition, only get a clue.
>

usage will decide. LE CAKCINKI & LO'E CAKCINKI aren't
replacements for Linnaean fu'ivla anyway. there's a million
kinds of beetle!

>Issue C:
>Since tanru are (very) semantically ambiguous, how can we allow
>ourselves to define language concepts using tanru (e.g. <sumti tcita>,
><se steci srana>, etc? Those would mean extremely 'wide' concepts!
>

using the lujvo from the start would have been a better idea, as
in BRIVLA & FU'IVLA, but it's easier for a neophyte to figure out a tanru.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com