Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.19;
Message-ID: <519D1E23.3010406@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 21:36:03 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban
References: <dee20715-897b-40fd-b3b1-292017750384@googlegroups.com> <20130520214048.GA3114@samsa.fritz.box> <CA+gZtgKmsBFMhcSuH4L4NMLSvq-u6u101x+brNT1eAwFDQFU9A@mail.gmail.com> <20130520221213.GB3114@samsa.fritz.box> <CA+gZtgKukqKxw6xcnA2kMbSd5cTp4PCkc+pq+-QwgLPCSFCR2Q@mail.gmail.com> <f03b55fef408e1a5c307cedec84557f5@plasmatix.com> <519B59B4.8020404@lojban.org> <ff1a6f01f9f4c084647a58733eeaa1eb@plasmatix.com> <CAMKwHj3psDe1bXsjQo9QPJt9vYohkrLT1ST1oFrYUtAbMsyiZg@mail.gmail.com> <519B8B71.90800@gmx.de> <CAMKwHj1-RUJy1JYYemDiCxbOe0fmCzuoWeOO9VHPOPtpOxTT_Q@mail.gmail.com> <519B9D34.3010704@gmx.de> <1369156225.81761.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <519BB664.7010505@gmx.de> <1369170061.60970.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1369170061.60970.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
> Your final comments raise the issue of what your xorlo is
> like -- clearly different from mine ("salient node ...") and apparently
> making {lo broda} applicable to things totally unlike brodas (which
> might, I suppose, be particularly bad cases of {le broda}).

I wasn't presenting my view of xorlo, but merely asking a hypothetical 
question. Some of this comes from the time when {ci lo mu bakni} meant 
"three groups of five cows" and {PA lo broda} was defined to be 
quantifying over a singluar Broda (so the {lo} could be dropped). The 
final version of xorlo doesn't have this anymore, so now {lo broda} must 
be able to create plural groups, which it obviously does, or else lo 
tadni could not sruri a dinju. Still, I'm not sure if, when taking {lo 
tadni} to be singular even in the sruri case, it's just English that 
makes it sound strange, or if it really is strange. By my comment I was 
trying to "invite" people to try to think about this very question but 
without going through English first and to see if there might not be 
some sense in it. In more slightly different terms: Would it be strange 
for a myopic singular student to surround a building?

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.