Re: le/lo

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

And:
>>  >>                             mi sisku lo'e plejykarce
>> >>                             "I'm looking for a taxi."
>> >>
 >But anyway, I would beware of anything that can't be mechanically
>translated into logical terms. "I am book-reading" would
>mean "there is a book and I am reading it", while "I am
>taxi-seeking" would not mean "There is a taxi and I am seeking
>it".

But {mi tcidu lo'e cukta} would not always mean "there is a book
and I am reading it". For example:

                        mi tcidu lo'e cukta ze'a le crisa
                        I was reading books all summer long.

I realize that there is a difference with intentional selbri, but
sometimes it is the case that there is a box such that I need
that particular box, and I want to be able to say that easily:
{mi nitcu le va tanxe} = "I need that box over there". That
requires some way to refer to needing a box when there
may not necessarily be one, and I think {mi nitcu lo'e tanxe}
is right for the job. But it certainly is very weird that, for example,
 {le se nitcu} and {le se sisku} are defined so differently.

>I would be happier if you used lujvo rather than this lo`e
>method. At least with lujvo we know they can have idiosyncratic,
>nonmechanical translations into logical terms.

With {lo'e} too. Or do you have a mechanical way of translating
{lo'e} into logical terms?

co'o mi'e xorxes