Re: The two lo'es (was: essentials of a gadri system)

xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > CLL-lo'e must involve some scope-sensitive typicality operator.
> > In that case, we would say "lo'e cinfo is intestinated by something
short",
> > but not "something short intestinates lo'e cinfo".
>
> OK, that makes more sense.
>
> In that case, CLL-lo'e (lo'e1) could perhaps be defined in terms
> of Kind-lo'e (lo'e2) as something like:
>
> lo'e1 broda = lo'e2 broda na'oku
>
> CLL-lo'e = Kind plus typicality.
>
> If so, isn't the restricted CLL-lo'e a waste of cmavo?

Yes. But the gadri currently fall into 3 classes:
(A) Unbroken and unnecessary.
(B) Systemically broken but not intrinsically broken. (i.e. independently
okay,
but part of an overall screwed up system)
(C) Intrinsically broken.

CLL-lo'e belongs to (A).

> A Kind-lo'e could
> include CLL-lo'e and easily and accurately specify its restricted
> application with {na'o} when so required:
>
> lo'e cinfo na'o xabju le friko
> Lions typically live in Africa.
>
> mi pu viska lo'e cinfo bu'u na'ebo le friko
> I saw lions outside of Africa.

Certainly this is preferable -- to use na'o (or ta'e?) when typicality is
being talked about.

But we're not at the stage -- either analytically or politically -- where
we can productively start discussing reassignment of cmavo.

--And.