[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
lo'e is defined by the phrase {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko}. Any
definition of lo'e which is incompatible with that phrase violates
the baseline, makes a nonsense of any distinction between lo'e and
le'e, is doomed to be shouted down, and in my opinion (and not just
my opinion) can sod off.
Good thing my definition is not incompatible, then!
The concern is that, because a prominent Lojbanist has hijacked lo'e to his own ends, lo'e has stopped being "member of the gadri paradigm, in paradigmatic relation with le'e and lo", and has started being "that cmavo Jorge uses."
That's nonsense. I certainly don't want it out of the paradigm. I wish you read how I use it instead of making up your mind based on... what?
(Trobriand island talk notwithstanding: Mr Chocolate is *not* the same thing as 'exemplar of chocolate', and I think the confusion between the two underlies much of the difficulty --- we have been overusing loi at the expense of lo'e.)
You agree with me more and more.
What does lo'e broda mean in general? It is meaningless unless an assertion is predicated of it: it does not have a denotation, a concrete referent in the world. It is an intension: an abstraction out of things in the world, with regard to a specific claim, which is true or false of that abstraction. As a result, it is uncountable, and unquantifiable.
Why did you start by saying that you disagreed with my use, if you
are describing exactly my use of {lo'e}?
It is true to say {lo'e cinfu cu xabju le friko}, because most lions
live in Africa most of the time; and *enough* lions live in Africa
*enough* of the time, that we are entitled to make a generic claim.
I agree it is true. (I disagree about the reasons, though.)
And so we turn to the Llamban lo'e. I don't understand it yet. I understand it a little better with his buska, but still not enough to see the point.
The point is to formalize what you said above.
But I know this. In Lojban {lo'e}, as defined by CLL, it is true to
say that {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko}. If I go looking for a lion
in Llamban, and find one in Iran, it is false to say:
ge mi *buska lo'e cinfo
gi ge mi stufa'i lo cinfo pe vi le gugdrirana
gi lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko
No it is not false. It is true. Why do you say it is false?
What are the properties of the Llamban {lo'e cinfo}?
{lo'e cinfo} does not refer to any particular thing. Are you
asking what the properties of lions are?
Why, the
properties of Lojban {piro loi cinfo}.
Those are the properties of all lions taken together. A different thing. lo'e cinfo weighs a few hundred kilograms. piro loi cinfo weigh many many tons.
It can live in Africa, and it can live in Asia: both are true.
Lions live in Africa and in Asia, yes.
It does, after all, stand in (in
some wierd way) for {le ka ce'u cinfo} --- which is satisfied by
Iranian as well as African lions.
Yes.
Its only true properties are the properties intrinsic to lionhood --- e.g. being a mammal.
Huh? Wherever do you get that idea?
Not the
properties incidental to lionhood but general to it, such as living
in Africa. In Llamban, you can't say {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko}
any more than you can say {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le gugdrirana}.
What is this Llamban you're describing? Does it have anything
to do with me? {lo'e cinfo cu xabju ge le friko gi le gugdrirana}
is true, of course.
You want an intensional article, Jorge? More power to you. But cease using lo'e for it.
You want to complain about my use of {lo'e}, Nick? Find out what
it is, and don't complain about something that only exists in
your imagination.
lo'e has a defined meaning already, and it's a much needed meaning; it *is* how you say "I like chocolate".
Of course it is! It was me who used it that way, and pc who kept objecting! What are you talking about? Did you read that thread?
{lo'e}
is *an* intensional article, but it's not the all-purpose intensional
article you seek.
You obviously have no idea what I seek, so...
Not while {le'e} exists --- which is also an
intensional article {lo'e} is in a paradigmatic relation with.
Of course it is.
Not
while CLL exists --- which clearly makes a claim of Lions living in
Africa incompatible with the Llamban {lo'e}.
You're talking nonsense.
You are damaging Lojban by claiming {lo'e} is something it is not,
Jorge.
You're claiming that I claim things that I do not claim, Nick.
You have taken a reasonably well defined cmavo, and spread confusion about it.
Ha, ha.
You've had your chance to convince us that you're
right, and that {lo'e} should be something else.
Obviously I've been somewhat succesful, since your understanding
of {lo'e} seems to be pretty close to what I advocate.
But you've been refuted: everyone either ignores this lo'e of yours, or mocks it as Llamban.
Only pc likes to put names to my use of Lojban. I'm sorry you get taken in by that.
And has been doing so certainly since I rejoined the lists.
Yes, it is one of his mannerisms. I got used to it.
For the good of the language, use an experimental cmavo for your
intensional article, and leave {lo'e} alone.
I reserve my right to use the language as I deem better. I understand it belongs to its users. I like Lojban too much to let fundamentalists spoil it.
Or, if you persist, grow a thick hide. (OK, an even thicker hide.)
;)
Because I regard persistence in anti-baseline usage, even after due discussion and vetting, to be humpty-dumptying, and an act of contempt against the collective. If you're not prepared to write in Lojban, I'm not prepared to read you.
What makes you say I don't write in Lojban? Have you tried to read anything I wrote and failed to understand it? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Get faster connections�-- switch to�MSN Internet Access! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp