From mattarn@123.net Mon Dec 20 09:15:41 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:15:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from new.e-mol.com ([65.169.135.18] helo=mole.e-mol.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1CgR8G-0004y5-Gg for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:15:41 -0800 Received: from mail.123.net (new.e-mol.com [65.163.85.18]) by mole.e-mol.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with SMTP id iBKHFZIP028625 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:15:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:15:35 -0500 Message-Id: <200412201715.iBKHFZIP028625@mole.e-mol.com> To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org From: Matt Arnold Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: lo nanmu poi na va In-Reply-To: <537d06d004122006004b0c4591@mail.gmail.com> References: <200411231632.iANGW4IP015504@mole.e-mol.com> <12d58c1604112309403ae9d3fe@mail.gmail.com> <200411231944.iANJiMIP025557@mole.e-mol.com> <12d58c160411231406380fc4f2@mail.gmail.com> <200411240332.iAO3WbIP030051@mole.e-mol.com> <537d06d00411240121c80798b@mail.gmail.com> <200411291907.iATJ7EIP026153@mole.e-mol.com> <41C13D12.1010507@gulik.co.nz> <200412171452.iBHEqDIP014914@mole.e-mol.com> <537d06d004122006004b0c4591@mail.gmail.com> X-Priority: 3 X-From: mattarn@mail.123.net X-Originating-IP: [209.220.229.254] Content-Type: text/plain X-archive-position: 954 X-Approved-By: mattarn@123.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: mattarn@123.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners ki'e filip. I keep having to get used to the change from CLL, where {lo} means "the really is" and {le} means "the described as." If I understand correctly from the wiki's BPFK Section: gadri, I think {lo nanmu} now means "any of the things that are a man" and {le nanmu} now means "a particular man I have in mind." I like that way better. -la epcat lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org wrote: >On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:52:13 -0500, Matt Arnold wrote: >> Did I really use a plural somehow? I thought a plural would have "lei" or "loi" instead of "lo." >No, {lo nanmu} is ambiguous with respect to number and could mean "a >man" or "some men". >mu'o mi'e .filip. >-- >Philip Newton _______________________________________________________ Sent through e-mol. E-mail, Anywhere, Anytime. http://www.e-mol.com