[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Invent Yourself scripsit:
> > It's consistent with CLL. We have two competing definitions of lo'e equally
> > consistent with CLL, but compared to the other (mine), one (yours) has a
> > vastly narrower expressive capability.
>
> Given that we've been calling one "CLL" and the other "Jorge", I can't see
> how they are equally consistent with CLL.
No, this is not Jorge-lo'e (= Kind = Mr.). This is a different distinction:
is "lo'e cinfo" a reference to a singular abstract object, or is it a compact
way of specifying a complex quantification? I speak for the first viewpoint,
And for the second, but they are both CLL-compatible.
That said, I still don't really understand And's viewpoint.
--
John Cowan jcowan@hidden.email www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Assent may be registered by a signature, a handshake, or a click of a computer
mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the Internet. Formality
is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or even willful inaction,
as long as it is unequivocally referable to the promise, may create a contract.
--_Specht v. Netscape_