From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Mon Feb 14 15:01:17 1994
Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 1994 20:02:01 -0500
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 1994 20:01:56 -0500
Message-Id: <199402150101.AA14450@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 6895; Mon, 14 Feb 94 20:00:07 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 7055; Mon, 14 Feb 94 20:00:23 EDT
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 1994 20:01:17 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Quantifiers (was: cukta)
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO
X-Status: 

di'e preti be fi mi

> > > {ro lo klama} means the same as {ro lo klama be ?ma}
> > > Is {zo'e} the right answer?

i la i,n. cusku di'e

> > I think it has to be -

i la djan di'e cusku

> I agree.


Since zo'e may represent a sumti not explicitly stated because
it is obvious from context, I conclude that {ro lo klama} may
mean "all the goers to the place obvious from context". This is
very nice, because that's what one often means. (The use of
{le} is a different matter, I know it will let me get away with
anything.)

I don't have to specify what's obvious from context, and
I don't have to fear that a cooperative listener will interpret
it as "all goers to anywhwere", even if she is very strict with
semantics.

I suspect that my reasoning is wrong, why?

Jorge