Message-Id: <m0qunAy-00005YC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 11 Oct 1994 20:10:00 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: A couple of questions
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Tue, 11 Oct 94 09:36:26 D.)
Content-Length: 1126
Lines: 26

John:
> > The lojbanic solution in such cases is usually to invent ways to
> > express both meanings (& to make both expressions "Zipfean" - i.e.
> > verbose in proportion to their infrequency). So I conclude that
> > we need:
> >   (1) all, not implying existence
> >   (2) all, implying existence
> >   (3) some-but-not-necessarily-all, not implying existence
> >       [This is the ">0%" I've advocated.]
> >   (4) some-but-not-necessarily-all, implying existence
> > (1) is "ro" & (4) is "lo" & "da". It would be nice to have a convenient
> > expression for (2) & (3).
>
> I believe that by the current interpretations "lo" is #3.  #2 can be handled
> by something like "rosu'o", "all of the at-least-one".

So is (4) handled by "da poi ..." then?
Are you sure "rosuho" would work for (2)? We want "all (& there is at
least one)".
E.g. since Brahms's symphonies number 4, "all (& there is at least one)
of B's symphs" refers to all four, while "all of at least one of B's
S's" could refer to (the members of) any non-empty subset of the set of
all of B's S's, e.g. to only 2 of B's S. Which one does "rosuho" do?

---
And