Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0pX1xN-0000PiC; Thu, 17 Feb 94 08:11 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1197; Thu, 17 Feb 94 06:32:30 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1194; Thu, 17 Feb 1994 06:32:30 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8985; Thu, 17 Feb 1994 05:31:37 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 14:10:06 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: Quantifiers (was: cukta) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 651 Lines: 19 la i,n [tu'a?] mi spuda di'e > > This keeps the veridicality > > of {lo}, while permiting a context sensitive {ro}. I like it, but > > I don't think this is how {ro} is usually explained. > > Sorry, I didn't understand this bit. Let me try to put some flesh in the example. Say we are talking about the people who went to a party at John's place last Saturday. Can I use {ro lo klama} to mean all of them? The place they went to is clear from context, but I'm not talking about all the people who went there or will go there for ever and ever. (This would be a tense assumed from context, rather than a BAI, but it's the same thing.) mi'e xorxes