From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 21 09:07:32 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:07:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J5lLQ-0004vJ-6i for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:07:32 -0800 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J5lLI-0004v5-L4 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:07:32 -0800 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so194800fga.0 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:07:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=dz/6wXwzB2o73I6eWT61o8S3QqiFEVlS57JW7CaITUo=; b=lyuCb1utS8I505Id+ErXgHw3M1HkGZuHXvbodVk9AV5VtrxSmcD9WNK7V4ZHJ23jniP6p3K20bVJXpVOM2RIrWix0RLN0GJQnOBehMxgHvOapsjxYDCuODgDOlLU+5Qu1nJ0gbAsdopEQxCHOKCIZfd5cNsXlrFhDUjiLc0ER7w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=wtgA06y1bHyvpU14DvBLa5Yrpk/dSvplXGGffJ2qr9X4UGD7EE5FDvXEE8HjY5ZJliAAG29TYWm5lXJF8B+eqke+8CIhD991x92nvMqwdaGcv9kpjvelLgbQcbHnkbz1L6NUQzP1ktKC5yL7XrG06MQK0vRi4w05rgnuypthpYI= Received: by 10.86.58.3 with SMTP id g3mr1334492fga.1.1198256840301; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:07:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.86.13 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:07:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560712210907raa1615ehf3ab3fa2c557a6fc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:07:20 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: lo question In-Reply-To: <97f5058c0712210830y29d06e04ub7ca67a9b43555f1@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <737b61f30712202126p40d516f0ha7cc0af582587332@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560712210637mea1a698w69ceae2900c609cf@mail.gmail.com> <97f5058c0712210830y29d06e04ub7ca67a9b43555f1@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 11 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Dec 21, 2007 1:30 PM, Penguino wrote: > Wouldn't le work here? Yes, {le} would work too. But {lo ci mensi be mi} can, in context, be {lo ci mensi be mi [be'o poi kansa mi'a]}. It would hardly ever imply that you may not have a fourth sister in the future, for example, so it will normally be restricted to current sisters. Does it suggest, without further context, that you currently have only three sisters? Yes, for there is no reason, without context, to be excluding some of them. mu'o mi'e xorxes