From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Jul 30 16:24:51 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19i0JE-0008Pq-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:24:41 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-54-49.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.54.49])
	by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11AC3CF90
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 01:24:08 +0200 (MEST)
Message-ID: <014301c356f1$aff9da00$3f3d0751@oemcomputer>
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
References: <20030730123834.80685.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> <00d501c356e5$4c6e4360$3f3d0751@oemcomputer> <20030730221713.GA43767@allusion.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: le du
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:24:00 +0100
Organization: Livagian Consulate
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-archive-position: 6010
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

Jordan:
> > go'a-series  : ra-series
> > broda-series : ke'a-series
> > bu'a-series  : da-series
> > co'e         : ???????
>
> ...  zo'e, of course ...

See my reply to Adam L.

> > > Another possibility we have not yet considered is {le bu'a}.
> > 
> > We have not considered the more general question of what bu'a
> > means when not quantified in the prenex. Personally, I would
> > see it as the brivla equivalent of ce'u, in which case it wouldn't
> > be equivalent to {le du}.
>
> Seems to me that it should probably default to su'obu'a, like da
> defaults to su'oda.

If that were the case, then {le bu'a} would suffice as a descriptionless
referential expression, but would have the drawback of introducing
communicatively redundant quantification with all its attendant
difficulties.

--And.