[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 08:51 PM 12/23/02 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
la xod cusku di'e
>I like it fine! Are Jorge, Nick, and AndR on board this?
Jorge is, and I think that at least some Nicks are.
{pe'i su'o la nitcion cu tugni}
pe'i pisu'o lai nitcion cu tugni zo'o
>I am not
>inhibited at all, in my expected forthcoming usage, by the CLL's notion of
>substances being "loi" and not "lo".
The differences from CLL-compliant usage will be hard to spot
anyway. And's proposal makes bare {lo} easier to use, so that
you don't have to worry about scope issues. People already tend
to often use it like that anyway. One of the most frequent errors
people make disappears if {lo broda} is not forced to mean
{su'o da poi broda}, but it just means Substance broda. The
main difference for bare {le} is that it doesn't force a
distributive reading, but since the overwhelming majority of
{le}-as-used is singular anyway, it changes very little. We
already tend to use {role} when we want to make sure to be
understood that we mean distributive {le}. When it is just one,
it does no harm to describe the one individual you have in mind
as a Substance. And {loi/lei}, especially {lei}, are already
essentially used as collectives, whatever the Book says, so
little change there as well, other than in the doctrine behind
the usage. I believe I could even find support in old posts
from Lojbab for this {lo}, although he did not call it
Substance, of course.
Since lojbab doesn't understand what you are calling "Substance" and how it could possibly relate to "lo", lojbab will neither agree nor disagree.
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org