WikiDiscuss

pc:
> As for there being
> something wrong with current Lojban, we have known that for as many years as
> there has been current Lojban and have tried to fix it countlless times.

Not sure who you mean by "we", but some people think that nothing
should be touched.

> It
> sounds as though the fact that people were not called out on those uses of
> {lo} in the past kept them from looking for legitimate ways to speak in
> generalities.

People were called out on those uses all the time, you can see
that from the list archives. The problem is that we could say
{su'o lo} was wrong but we could not say what was right instead.
Any way of generic speaking could be objected to. And {lo} is not
the only thing people use for lack of something better. {le} and
{loi} are also popular alternatives.

> It may turn out that, on zipfy
> gounds for example, we want to start to use {lo} in this way and a longer
> expression for old {lo} (arguably, {su'o} already works), but that is a major
> decision, not to be made casually and without comment to speak of on a wiki
> page (and so looking remarkably like a done deal).

The wiki page is clearly labeled as a proposal, and it is clearly
part of the BPFK work we are doing. This is a proposal to be
discussed, amended as necessary, and voted on.

> 10: Ahah! Context makes a difference; it looked like a report but it was a
> direction ({e'u} or {e'o} or {ei} or maybe something more complex). Still,
> as read by each particular teacher and applied in a particular classroom, it
> is quite particular, so {le ctuca} and {le or {lei} selctu}.

So even though the speaker does not have any particular
teacher in mind, you think he should use {le} because some teacher
reading it might have a particular one in mind? What about other
readers that may simply be interested in teaching methods but not
in actually performing this particular lesson?

> 12. Even if {lo} is generic in the sense set out here. To be sure, for the
> uncountables (in English), {lo djacu} comes pretty close to being about the
> substance in extension at least. But that doesn't work for countables lo
> bakni are cattle, not beef.

{lo tu'o gerku} is proposed for the dog all over the pavement.
"Beef" however is probably better as {bakni rectu}.
({ractu rectu} for rabbit.)

> 15: Where is the implicit negation in {nitcu}? To be sure, needing implies
> lacking; but it does not assert it.

Does {claxu} assert not having, or does it just imply it?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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