From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jun 13 10:42:07 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Dhswg-0002h3-J3 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:41:58 -0700 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Dhswg-0002gw-8q for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:41:58 -0700 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:41:58 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Un-definite quantifier. Message-ID: <20050613174158.GH4118@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <200506130847.39565.phma@phma.hn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 10153 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:11:29PM -0000, opi_lauma wrote: > > You don't need the {lo} here. > > Where? In the last example or in all my examples? All of them. > And why I do not need {lo}? It is not necessary or I change > meaning if I put {lo}? PA broda == PA lo broda; it's a short-hand. > Is {su'o lo gerku} not equivalent to {lo gerku}? It is in the CLL, but that's almost certainly going to change. See http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/