From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Fri Jul 29 17:33:48 1994 Message-Id: <199407292133.AA09529@nfs1.digex.net> Date: Fri Jul 29 17:33:48 1994 Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Message from Colin FIne To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO la kolin cusku di'e [...] > so lu'i le nanmu cu se cimei > > does mean "the set of (all) the designated men is a set of cardinal 3" > > I thought at first that "le'i nanmu" meant the same thing, but now I think > it means "the designated sets of men" - I'm not sure, though. Would {lu'i ro lo nanmu} be the same as {lo'i nanmu}? Probably yes. > In the same way, > "lu'a le klesi" means "[all] the members of the designated classes", > distributively, and [all] or [at least one of]? The cmavo list suggests [all], the grammar paper suggests [at least one of]. I agree with the paper, but in any case it would be nice if they were made to agree. > "lu'o le nanmu" means "the mass of [all] the designated men" > (which has properties of some of the men, properties of all of the men, > and properties of the mass) Again, what's the default quantifier of {lu'o}? {pisu'o} would seem to be consistent with {lei}, {loi}. Jorge