Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 08:14:30 -0500 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 08:14:25 -0500 Message-Id: <199402151314.AA02127@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9001; Tue, 15 Feb 94 08:12:34 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1189; Tue, 15 Feb 94 08:13:23 EDT Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 13:12:23 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: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 15 13:12:23 1994 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET la xorxes. di'e cusku > 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? I don't understand your problem - your reasoning looks fine to me. Just because it's veridical, doesn't mean it has to be precise. %~> mi'e .i,n.