[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> >Hopefully you and John will agree with that, seeing as you
> >both say you're amenable to lo'e = loi'e
>
> I'm amenable. John says he is amenable too, but I don't know
> if our ideas of what {loi'e} is coincide
We all agree on the semantics of loi'e/lo'e. John takes a much
stricter view of the appropriacy conditions on its usage. He's
a bit like that with English too -- cf the recent exchange
about novelists and lion-tamers.
I think that (I do hope xod is reading this!) this is something
that's going to have to be left to usage. The more naturally
myopic singularization comports with one's own conceptual
dispositions, the more contexts one is going to be happy to
use loi'e/lo'e in. This is one of the most promisingly whorfian
things we have in Lojban so far.
--And.