[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 12:17 PM 1/8/03 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group wrote: > Nora observes that since the ultimate definition of lo broda and le broda > pertains to things that fill the x1 of broda, and since for various broda, > the x1 place is expressed as individuals, sets, masses, and what have you, > then le/lo manifestly MUST be ambiguous amongst those meanings, regardless > of the specified default quantifiers and what people have deduced from the > assignment of such quantifiers. This is a strange argument. Who says that lo broda must be meaningful for any conceivable sumti place?
Well "lo xe munje" isn't meaningful, but if a place actually is defined in a place structure then the "lo SE broda corresponding to that place is any referent that can veridically fill the place".
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