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 #1) id m0qmDNr-00005LC; Sun, 18 Sep 94 06:57 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0qmDNr-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 9213; Sun, 18 Sep 94 06:56:20 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9209; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 06:56:19 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4907; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 05:55:07 +0200
Date:         Sat, 17 Sep 1994 23:54:52 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: needing books
X-To:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 505
Lines: 15

JL>Or, (but lojbab disagrees):
JL>
JL>    mi nitcu lo cukta

I only disagree in that if And attaches significance to 'specific'
(which I failed to notice in my own response to him), then it should
be "le" rather than "lo" because "lo" is inherently non-specific
  Hmm. I'll amend that.  If we are not being pedantic, then "lo" may
possibly be specific because pragmatics will indicate that there are
unstated restrictions.


Hmm.  Do we have an attitudinal that says "pedantic - non-pedantic" %^)

lojbab