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-0000PhC; 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 1182; Thu, 17 Feb 94 06:31:59 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1180; Thu, 17 Feb 1994 06:32:00 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8960; Thu, 17 Feb 1994 05:31:07 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 18:42:30 GMT Reply-To: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: Re: TECH: Quantifiers (was: cukta) X-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 539 Lines: 15 la xorxes. cusku di'e > If {ro lo broda} is the same as {ro lo broda be zo'e}, is it also > the same as {ro lo broda be BAI zo'e}? I think not quite. The latter claims that the broda-ing is BAI-ed by something, so it is more restrictive than the former. In other words, {ro lo broda be BAI zo'e} can only refer to BAI-ed broda-ers. > 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. mi'e .i,n.