[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] lo'e

In a message dated 10/23/2002 12:48:28 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@hidden.email writes:

>>
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, And Rosta wrote:

> Xod:
> > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > > Yes, I don't mind disagreeing with CLL
> >
> > I haven't yet seen an explanation of what's so broken with the CLL
> > definition or usage of lo'e
>
> It's not broken. It's incomplete/vague/underspecified.



That's the nature of the idea of "typical". What part of this bothers you
and Jorge? Do you want to detach lo'e from "typical"? Do you want to give
"typical" a firmer logical footing? Or what?
>>
Yes.  Both of those and deal with a mass of other similar concepts as well.  If you understand what is going on with these, your input would be especially welcome (though, as And notes, not necessarily decisive).