WikiDiscuss

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:02:21PM -0400, xod wrote:
snip
> >>.i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda

xod:
What are the properties of "loi broda" that "lo broda" does not have?

> >pe'i noda

xorxes:
I think none at all.

> >...
> >>.i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne
> >>lo si'o gunma

xod:
Indeed, the idea of masses is part of the idea of pluralities, but what
is the fate of "loi", which is the adea of masses?

> >do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e
> >pilno zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei

xorxes:
What are you suggesting? I am satisfied with not using "loi", but I
suppose one could use "loi" to emphasize the property of being a
two-or-more-some.

> bi'unai lo selsni be zo loi cu nalsatci .i'enai .oisai
> .i lo si'o gunma ku (noi nalsatci zi'e ne zo loi)
> cu da'inai di'i mintu
> lo si'o girzu ku (noi smuni satci zi'e ne .ei lu lo su'o broda li'u)
> .i ji'a da'inai di'i mintu
> lo si'o selmai ku (noi smuni satci zi'e ne .ei lu lo tu'o broda li'u
> .onai lu tu'o broda li'u)

xod:
As I've said, the meaning of "loi" is not exact; this upsets me greatly
and I disapprove. The idea of a mass (which is inexact and is
associated with "lo") is in fact regularily identical with the idea of a
plurality (which has an exact meaning and must be "lo su'o broda"). In
addition, it is in fact regularily identical with the idea of a
substance (which has an exact meaning and must be "lo tu'o broda" or
"tu'o broda"). By which you mean a substance without intantiation in a
particular form? I guess? What's the difference between %22tu'o broda%22
and %22no broda%22?

> .i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy
> ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i gi tu'a zo tu'o

xod still:
I conclude that I will not defend loi. Clearly you agree. Therefore
you must be honest with the BPFK that "loi"
is tragically cursed and about "tu'o".

> >...
> >>.i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

xod:
I approve of your use of "tu'o"; please suggest it to the BPFK.

> >mi senpi i pe'i ei zo tu'o se ciksi fi'o tcita zo tu'o enai zo lo i
> >mi na djica lo nu su'o prenu na zanru le papri ki'u lo na mutce srana
> >i ku'i mi ba pensi

xorxes:
I doubt it. I thing I am obligated to explain "tu'o" with the label of
"tu'o" and not "lo". jatna: Unless you are expecting this usage to be
a natural outcome of your %22lo%22 proposal, in which case I expect it to be
explained. I don't want at least one person to disapprove of the page
because it was not relevant enough. But I will think on it.

> .ie mi zmanei
> lo tcita be fi zo tu'o be'o
> lo tcita be fi lu lo tu'o be'o

xod:
Yes, I prefer the label of "tu'o" to the lable of "lo tu'o".

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple
inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi