Message-Id: <m0pXaLi-0000PYC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 18 Feb 1994 12:18:45 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Quantifiers (was: cukta)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1255
Lines: 33

la i,n tu'a mi spuda di'e
> la xorxes. cusku di'e
> > la i,n [tu'a?] mi spuda di'e
>
> Since you ask :) - I prefer the {tu'a} here.  The x2 of spuda can be
> an event, therefore it should always be one.

I think I agree with you. I will start using it this way.

> > Can I use {ro lo klama} to mean all of them?

> I think the official answer will be no, it must mean all goers
> irrespective of destination or time etc.  I'm not sure whether
> there will be a water-tight explanation of this relative to
> {ro lo klama be zo'e}.

Yes, I can't think of one.

> I think it'll probably boil down to a question
> of how much leeway you can expect even from a cooperative listener.
> You could have used {le}, which is the usual way of indicating that
> you're talking about something _in context_, and {lo} normally indicates
> something relatively context-free.

I almost never use {lo}, because I never know what I'm saying with it.
The problem is that any self-respecting jbopre will assume that if you
call something a {le nanmu}, it most likely will turn out to be a woman :)

But seriously, if {lo} is only for context free situations, then it can't
be specific. I try not to think of {lo,le} as "some,the", but it's hard to
see any difference.

Jorge