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 m0pWEAq-0000PeC; Tue, 15 Feb 94 03:02 EET
Message-Id: <m0pWEAq-0000PeC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 3940; Tue, 15 Feb 94 03:01:48 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3938; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 03:01:47 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6642; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 02:00:57 +0100
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 1994 20:01:17 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)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 772
Lines: 29

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