From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Aug 02 15:21:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 22:21:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 56143 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 22:19:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 22:19:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.92) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 22:19:58 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:19:58 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.171 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 02 Aug 2001 22:19:58 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.171] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] vliju'a Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 22:19:58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2001 22:19:58.0671 (UTC) FILETIME=[43F21DF0:01C11BA1] From: "Jorge Llambias" la kir cusku di'e >I was always confused with the very meaning of {lo'e}. Does it mean the >same as {so'a lo} or maybe {so'e lo} or even {rau lo}? If not, why? No, it's none of those, lo'e is about the archetype. If you want a quantifier it will have to be {tu'o lo}. We might say that lo'e extracts the purely intensive properties of the members of the set. No extensive examination of them (what quantifiers do) helps. > > Or we can simplify it to: {lo'e djuno cu vlipa}. > >Very fine! Short, precise, lojbanic. Or just {lo djuno cu vlipa}, >regarding my doubts with {lo'e}. If you have doubts about lo'e (which is most reasonable of you), then {ro djuno cu vlipa} is, I think, better. {lo djuno cu vlipa} only says that some knower is powerful, hardly comparable to the claim that knowledge is power. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp