From sentto-44114-15910-1032548935-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Sep 20 12:11:21 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n19.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.74]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17sTBP-0002Vl-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:11:19 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15910-1032548935-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n19.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Sep 2002 19:08:55 -0000 X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 20 Sep 2002 19:08:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 55497 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 19:08:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2002 19:08:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-15.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.115) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 19:08:54 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-4.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.4]) by mailbox-15.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 429E520236 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:08:52 +0200 (DST) To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <125.16ccac89.2abb8510@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:10:32 +0100 Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o usage Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1398 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list pc: > &: > << > There is a difference between claiming something and implying something. > This shows up, for example, if the whole sentence is negated. > >> > Does this mean that {tu'o broda cu brode} and {tu'o broda na brode} > both imply that there is only one broda, while {pa broda cu brode} > does and {pa broda na brode} does not. {tu'o broda cu brode} and {tu'o broda na brode} both imply that there is only one broda, while {lo pa broda cu brode} claims there is only one broda and {lo pa broda na brode} does not. Furthermore, {lo pa broda na brode} is true if there is not only one broda, while {tu'o broda na brode} is true only if tu'o broda na brode. > That, if true, would be a reason for using {tu'o}. Indeed. > I can't think of any reason to think it is true in Lojban (but > then, I have no idea what {tu'o} means in Lojban). It's a dummy word, similar to, say, zi'o. It has no meaning. --And. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/