Subject: Re: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution?

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:48:45

la xod cusku di'e

> > What I am saying is that it shouldn't have both meanings.
> > {lu'e la djan} means {zo djan} now, you want it to mean
> > {le du'u makau du la djan}. Likely a more useful meaning,
> > but clearly a different meaning.
>
>The issue is that you are "solving the formula" too quickly; replacing the
>lu'e with its solution immediately, ending up with a meaningless result,
>and complaining about it.

I don't complain, I'm very happy with kau, and I have no problem
with your redefined lu'e either, as I don't have much use for the
old meaning.

>John Cowan was right; you are conflating djuno and slabu. mi djuno la djan
>is meaningless; let's get that out of the way. However, can you see that
>mi djuno lu'e le tercukta is different?

Yes, that means {mi djuno zo djan} (old meaning) or {mi djuno
le du'u makau du le tercukta} (your new meaning).

>And with respect to the ambiguity, if there is interpretive ambiguity
>between {I know who wrote the book} and {I know 'John'}, and the latter is
>meaningless, then there is only one meaningful interpretation and no
>ambiguity!

Ok. If you're happy with context disambiguating between the two
possible meanings of {lu'e}, I won't object to your use. We already
have a similar situation with {jei} and, to a lesser extent, {ni}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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