[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > > 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. > > But it's simpler to have a sumti talk about an object, even an abstraction. > What you want to do can be done, I believe, with a tense. That's true: a typicality tense. But JWC-CLL-lo'e is always equivalent to JWC-CLL-lo'e with a typicality tense with narrowest scope, whereas AR-CLL- lo'e is equivalent to JWC-CLL-lo'e but with a typicality tense whose scope is determined by the linear position of lo'e. To say "People are typically reared by one woman" with JWC-CLL-lo'e, you have to make the tense explicit, so it has scope over pa ninmu, whereas with AR-CLL-lo'e you have to make sure it precedes the pa ninmu. To say "One thing [i.e. sex] is generally on the minds of people" with JWC-CLL-lo'e, the tense can be omitted, while with AR-CLL-lo'e the lo'e must follow the "one thing". I still prefer AR-CLL-lo'e as more consistent with the way lojban usually works, but I accept that either is broadly satisfactory. > > I don't really care either way, since I wouldn't shed a tear if lo'e were > > abolished altogether. But it seems perverse to prefer your definition to > > mine. > > Conservatism. Personal conservatism, rather than CLL conservatism, that is. --And.