WikiDiscuss

pc:
> F:But the disanalogy is stronger-- one is the product of analysis, the other
> of synthesis, which require very different sorts of things. We know that the
> totality exists and have doubts about the stages in the one case; we jknow
> that the instances exist but have doubts about the totality in the other.

I don't have more doubts about the stages than the individual, or
about the kind than the instances. They are all artifacts of language
to me. Maybe that's why we can't seem to understand each other.

> L: But the paradox disappears completely with quantification (one of the
> reasons for its development, in fact). {su'o pavyseljirna na zasti}

What about {su'o pavyseljirna cu xanri}?

> M: But why do you think that {lo ractu} old style would be used to say
> something about the class of rabbits or the collective of rabbits or whatever
> it is that you seem to think "rabbits" refers to in English/ {lo} makes a
> lousy tense marker, too, but that is not a reason to replace it; it is a
> reason to get a tense marker that does what is wanted.

{lo} was redundant in its function, being equivalent to {su'o},
so it was the logical choice. Also, there's the historical conexion
to Loglan {lo}. Also, the simplest gadri should be the most general
one. {lo} is to gadri as {cu} is to tenses.

> If what you say about the {lo} examples — I have to admit I stopped at {...
> nitcu lo ...}, then the gadri page is in worse shape than even I thought,
> since, by your descripotion, it gives as exemplary cases of {lo} things that
> are not (clearly, generally agreed) cases of {lo} at all.

They are examples of the proposed lo, of course. This is the adrees
of the page, in case you want to discuss actual examples:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri

> Byt the way, somehwere earlier you called {tu'a lo ractu} vague. It is, of
> course, since it omits information about what I want/need/etc. for

Both {djica} and {nitcu} have an x3 for "for", so the vagueness
of tu'a is of a different sort. For example:

mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe lo nu mi punji lo cukta ty(?)
I need (something about) a box so that I put some books in it(?)

The "something" is probably "having it". I'm not sure if the {ty}
is correct here. Can you refer to a quantified something that's
inside a different abstraction?

> dreamed about it and so on. But this is marked less vague than {lo ractu} in
> your usage, which also omits all that information (and does not even indicate
> that it may be significant) but plunks us down with something that is not
> even a rabbit (or is only in an indirect sort of way).

lo ractu does, of course, ractu. {mi nitcu lo tanxe lo nu mi punji
lo cukta ty} is simply "I need a box to put books in it", no more vague
than that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/