Received: from access2.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA04904 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 11 Oct 1994 09:36:31 -0400 Received: by access2.digex.net id AA25162 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Tue, 11 Oct 1994 09:36:27 -0400 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199410111336.AA25162@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: A couple of questions To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 09:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199410081409.AA03239@nfs2.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Oct 8, 94 12:03:24 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 795 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Oct 11 09:36:37 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab la .and. cusku di'e > 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". -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.