Re: lohe, lehe & ka

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la xorxes. pupupu cusku di'e

> > > > I disagree that all properties of the members
> > > > are properties of the mass, if that is what you are saying.

la .and. pupu cusku di'e

> > > Well I am saying this, but in my defence I do think it Came From On
> > > High.

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.  Talk to Iain Alexander some time (he's my best and
most consistent volunteer copyeditor).

1) I make slips of the pen;

2) I sometimes misunderstand the Received Doctrine;

3) The R.D. is sometimes WRONG.

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.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.