Re: lohe, lehe & ka

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

John:
> la xorxes. pu cusku di'e
> > > I know, but you don't believe everything that comes from Up There,
> > > do you?
> la .and. cusku di'e
> > I do when it's signed "John Cowan".
>
> Hey, hey, hey, now.  Just because I can write clearly and concisely doesn't
> mean I'm always RIGHT.

Clearly, concisely and with such authority, such command...
I should have added a big ZO'O, but didn't do so because I wanted
to use it together with a discursive for sincerity & couldn't find
one - that is, I wanted to signify levity rather than humorous
insincerity.

> In this case, I'm not sure I know the answer any more.  I think someone
> who understands masses (JCB? Malinowski?) may need to declare.  JCB once
> wrote an essay called "The Creatures Of >Lo<" (meaning "loi"); when I
> have a chance, I'll transcribe an excerpt.

As far as I can see, the opposing views of LOI are equally coherent,
and the issue is which view is declared to be the right one for
LOI. Whichever turns out to be right, we will then ask for a way to
express the other.

If we still wish to debate the matter, I would ask Jorge how he thinks
LOI differs from LO. Is it just that "re loi" is inappropriate? That
is, we can distinguish between one mass and another, but not between
the individuals that compose a mass? I think that's Jorge's view.
This contrasts with my understanding, which is that we don't
differentiate between one mass of broda and another. On the view
I have just attributed to Jorge, "ro loi" ought to mean "every mass
of", and "re loi" should make sense (two differentiable masses).
On my view, there is just one "loi broda", and there is no need
for an external quantifier.

---
And