[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 01:50:48AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> Intemperate response.
[ Can you put attributions on your messages? It makes it easier
to tell who you're replying to ]
[...]
> > >* Rejecting the DeLong/LeChevalier line of {lo prenu remei cu bevri},
> > >because if {remei} is a mass
> > as it is defined in the word lists (not just CLL)
>
> And since both the word lists and the CLL have no idea that there is a
> distinction between substance and collective, and think they're both
> the same, you'll pardon me if on this, I suspend fundamentalism.
[...]
> Usage? USAGE?! That's rich, when you never defined the difference
> between collective and substance in the first place.
Ok, let's all keep in mind that this "substance" and "collective"
crud has *nothing* to do with lojbanmasses. You guys pulled this
from analysis of mass expressions in english and such things. In
lojban, masses from lei/loi have a specific definition which is not
either of these. Lojban is not english. It's plain malrarbau to
be unable to accept that lojbanmasses aren't precicely equivalent
to one (of the many possible) analysis of English.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binPjNOxlyo1g.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped