Subject: Re: [lojban] vliju'a

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 22:19:58

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