I think you're missing the fact that it's not happening by itself, the way
schools close at the end of the day or end of the school year, but that it's
being done as a result of human decision, and that's it's permanent.
stevo
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbrav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscie...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I just used it because it's the default {gadri}. If you're learning
>> Lojban via
>> either *Lojban for Beginners* or *{la lojban. mo}/What is Lojban?*, both
>> of
>> these (last time I checked) describe the {gadri} ("{lo}," "{le}," "{la},"
>> and
>> some other uncommon ones) as they were specified in *The Complete Lojban
>> Language* in 1997. However, in 2004, the definition of "{lo}" was changed
>> from
>> "a thing which truly is..." to "a thing associated with...". Along with
>> the
>> other minor changes made to the {gadri} at the same time, you can find
>> more
>> information on this at
>> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How+to+use+xorlo>. As a
>> result, "{lo}" is now the preferred {gadri} to use whenever in doubt, and
>> it is
>> always acceptable to use "{lo}" wherever "{le}" can be used.
>>
>
> This is interesting. I've been learning out of Lojban for Beginners (with
> some supplements, mostly dictionaries), and I found "le" to be a bit more
> vague than it could have been there. From what I see there, now I see that
> lo is evidently quite a bit more vague even than le was before...just at a
> glance I don't think I like it quite as much this way as the other way. The
> main problem with lo that I had before was the "lo <number> <sumti>..."
> meaning "one or more of the <number> <sumti> in the universe...", which
> seems to be gone.
>
> Thank you for that anyway (although I have actually seen that already in
> fishing around on the mailing list).
>
>
>> The definition of {fanmo} is "x1 is an end/finish/termination of
>> thing/process
>> x2", i.e., its x2 can be either a process or a thing, which is what {lo
>> ckule}
>> is.
>>
>
> I suppose then the idea that "a thing ends" is being a problem in my head.
> Even trying to strip the layers of English it seems odd.
>
> However, I do see that with the changes to lo, lo ... se fanmo makes sense.
> It still doesn't get to everything in "is closed", but I don't know if
> anything really will without way too much detail.
>
> mu'omi'e latros.
>
>
