From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Wed Sep  8 16:27:39 1993
Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 8 Sep 1993 10:29:48 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 8 Sep 1993 10:29:44 -0400
Message-Id: <199309081429.AA05043@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 6880; Wed, 08 Sep 93 10:28:08 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 1284; Wed, 08 Sep 93 10:31:02 EDT
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1993 15:27:39 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: LE & LO
X-To:         lojban@cuvma.BITNET, I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Wed, 08 Sep 93 12:40:39 A.)
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> > The solution, I think, is:
> >     do ba speni lo me luha le((h)i) zabna
>
> Ugh!  I don't think you need to go quite this far. %%>
>
> At least part of the _specific_ nature of {le broda} is due to
> the default {ro} quantifier ({[ro] le [su'o [pa]] broda}).
> I think all you need to do to talk about (a) non-specific
> individual(s) is to add an explicit quantifier.
>
>     do ba speni su'o le zabna
>
> The {su'o} could of course be other things such as {pa}, depending
> on exactly what you wanted to say.  {le zabna} remains the (specific)
> group that you have in mind as being described as {zabna}, but now
> your selecting from that group.

My problem with this is how you would get the opposition:

     do ba speni lo me luha le/lei/lehi zabna
     do ba speni le me luha le/lei/lehi zabna

the 2nd one means you're going to marry a particular one of those
particular zabnas.

And if you were right, wouldn't "lo" always be replaceable by
"suho (or whatever) le [ro] broda"?

-----
And