That's the most reasonable interpretation out of context,= if you mran "Generally, one picture is worth 1000 words." There is no mark= er of generality here, however, so it might mean "The one picture (or the t= wo, perhaps) is worth 1000 words." and so on. But there is something = odd about the generalization here, which would be absent in {lo pixra pamei= ...}: the reference to a single picture singleton as a reference to the wh= ole class of such. Just how this fits into the scheme is just not cle= ar to me either.

From: Mic= hael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 14, 2011 11:14:45 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Update on g= adri Proposal

Okay, so it seems maybe we've made some concrete de= cisions here. This is good. So now, maybe someone can explain t= hem again, because I'm not quite sure I understand the inner qualifier? &nb= sp;For example, one of the examples on the page is lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi (On= e picture is worth a thousand words.). Obviously, this is quite diffe= rent than pa lo pixra li'o (There is exactly a single one of the pictures u= nder discussion that is worth one thousand words). So it seems, from = the example, that "lo pa pixra" means that any generic pixra pamei is worth= some generic valsi ki'omei. Is that it? Or am I once again mis= sing subleties?

--gejyspa

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:00 PM,= John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, it is often clear that lo broda is le= ss than all the brodas we might
consider -- and often clear that it is at least all of them.

----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambi= as@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com=

Sent: Sat, December 10, 2011 10:40:43 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Update on gadri Proposal

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Jo= hn E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.= com> wrote:
> {PA broda} picks PA brodas out of the whole universe of discourse; {PA= lo
>broda}
> picks PA brodas out of lo broda. Of course, the two piles of ava= ilable brodas
> may be the same, but they need not be and often are not. If the = point of the
> example was to show that {lo} made no difference, then the example sho= uld be
> done away with indeed.

OK, I removed the offending sentence, and moved the offending example,
minus "(lo)", to the section on "le".

Since we have no way of specifying or determining the domain of
discourse, I think this is a distinction that makes no difference, but
it's not worth making a fuss over.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
l= ojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.