[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote: > 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 Did anyone notice that in this post, John uses "lo tcati" as "some portion of tea", giving lo a historical precedent for use as substance? Jorge objected to "I want coffee or tea" being rendered as "mi djica lo ckafi .a lo tcati", and instead of answering him with "mi djica lo ckafi ja tcati" (or maybe they did -- I didn't read every message), they settled on the less precise "mi djica tu'a lo ckafi .a lo tcati". -- // if (!terrorist) // ignore (); // else collect_data ();