[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la xod cusku di'e
So while I may be wrong, and am open to learning more about this, I think it's disingenuous to claim that it actively violates the CLL.
I'm not saying you do it on purpose, but it's not just this
example. You often write things like "if da this then da that"
meaning "if something this then it that". This "something"
in English is generic, it is not {da}. If anything you need
a {roda} in the prenex, but you always forget it. You fairly
consistently use {lo} and {da} as generics. This is not
surprising because from a purely naturalistic point of
view this is how Lojban should have been defined, with
generics rather than particulars as default. I'm sure that's
how natlangs must work.
As a suggestion: Every time you write a {ganai... gi...}
sentence, check if you have {da} or {lo} in the first part
and whether or not you need to put {roda} in the prenex.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp