From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Jul 16 08:04:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25821 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2000 15:04:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jul 2000 15:04:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.233) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Jul 2000 15:04:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 57734 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jul 2000 15:04:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000716150405.57733.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.152.77 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 08:04:05 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.152.77] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] A defense of dead horse beating Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 08:04:05 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >I still don't see how you get from {ko'a poi broda} to {ro broda}. Ok, you're right, they're different. > > >though I'd be happiest if > > >{ko'a poi broda cu brode} simply means {ko'a broda gi'e brode}. > > > > That's {ko'a noi broda}. {poi} is restrictive. > >I'm not sure about {noi} clauses. Their English counterparts >have the characteristic of being outside the scope of the outermost >illocutionary operators, & I don't know whether this is presumed to >apply to noi too. I guess it does, but in this example it makes no difference, right? But {ko'a poi broda cu brode} does not mean {ko'a broda gi'e brode}. The first says that of all the referents of ko'a, those that are broda are also brode, whereas the second says that all of the referents are both broda and brode. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com