[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la lojbab cusku di'e
> My own concept of "lo" (and I did invent the thing), was based on Loglan's
> article (le'u?) which was used for universal claims about a set, and was
> translated as "all those which really are members of the set".
Are you thinking of "lea"?
"lea" is all the members of the set taken together as one whole,
it is not for universal quantification. See
http://www.loglan.org/Articles/sets-and-multiples.html
"lea" is for "sets" as opposed to "multiples".
In Lojban, the closest thing we have to "lea" is {piro loi}.
Lojban's {ro lo} is Loglan's "ra".
If {lo} was inspired by "lea", then the current proposal does in
some way take us back to the origins, because the proposed meaning
for {lo ro} is basically {lea}. {lo ro broda} is Mr All Broda, but
since Mr All broda conventionally has only one avatar, it agrees
with "lea" which is more like the avatar itself.
> After the intervening years, and
> the flip-flop that occurred in late 1994, the CLL version of lo already
> does not match my understanding, since I never bought into "lo" = "da poi"
> (but I wasn't the one writing CLL).
The issue here is whether "lo" = "su'o lo". There is no argument
so far against {su'o lo broda} being {su'o da poi broda}.
> Thus, if one asks my opinion on what the essentials of the gadri are, it is
> that
> "le" be "in mind referent" (which I think people have said means "+specific
> -veridical") and "lo" is "+veridical" and probably "-specific".
All of that is maintained in the proposals.
> >Am I letting my personal
> >feelings exacerbate this? Probably: I've been defending And and Jorge's
> >right to speak, apparently expecting in return a deference I have not
> >proven I deserve.
>
> You deserve deference merely for having undertaken the job of herding the
> cats, even if you did not already deserve it by simultaneous demonstration
> of both usage and linguistic background.
Nick certainly has all my respect. I don't see how any solution
could be adopted if we don't manage to convince Nick first.
> I am more than a little intrigued by Cowan's claim that Lojban would not
> have such current trouble if JCB had made a certain pronouncement on the
> gadri 10 years earlier, but since JCB did not have "lo", I'm not sure that
> has bearing on the matter.
For a start we wouldn't have had the "set" gadri as mathematical sets
(which JCB does not have) and we wouldn't have had so much conflation
in our "mass" gadri. Our {loi} took the name from JCB's {lo} but the
meaning of JCB's {lea}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com