[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
* Regarding the definition lo = su'o pa as inviolable
It should be caveated that Lojbab never fully accepted that
lo broda = su'o da poi broda. I think even in this thread he
made some comment about that. He also used to insist that the
order in which {lo broda} appears in a bridi should not
affect meaning. And's proposal may turn out to be a discovery
of what Lojbab's intuitions on {lo} were all about from
the beginning, intuitions which he simply was not able to
explain or we were not able to understand. Certainly the
claim that Lojban does not force you to make the singular/plural
distinction makes the most sense with {lo} as the Substance
gadri.
* Rejecting the DeLong/LeChevalier line of {lo prenu remei cu bevri},
because if {remei} is a mass we're back to square one (it could still
be one person doing the carrying), and if {remei} is a collective...
well, that might work, but it needs a lot of thinking
I don't understand what could be objectionable about {lo prenu
remei cu bevri}. {remei} seems to be necessarily collective.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf