[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > From TL 4/3 (November 1980), in > which pc summarized (with JCB concurrence) the additions to the language > from 1975-80 in what was stated to be an official supplement to Loglan I: > > " > (Lua and Lue) Each forms a designation of a set or a class as such rather > than of their members, as is the case with le and lea [lea in lojban is ro > lo]. Lue is analogous to le in that it is "intentional". It designates a > particular set which the speaker "has in mind" by his mentioning one or > more of the properties shared, or apparently shared, by its members. [...] > Note also that JCB and pc apparently understood the "in mind" aspect of le > (and le'e) to be +intentional rather than +specific; The above description sounds like a description of +specific, with "+intentional" as merely a nonstandard term for +specific. > I'm not sure when le > became -opaque, but suspect that it came from a discussion involving these > same parties (Cowan, And, and Jorge) in 1994 including > http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9411/msg00073.html > I suggest people review the discussions of that era in the archives, > especially looking for "opaque" and "specific" to see where this debate got > started (if you also look for "Iain" you will find where the abstraction > place in sisku came from), and perhaps find that we resolved it already The -opaque follows from the general principle that every sumti is quantified in the localmost bridi that may be ancient or may have originated with John in the early 90s. --And.