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 m0quhWE-00005YC; Tue, 11 Oct 94 15:45 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0236; Tue, 11 Oct 94 15:45:41 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0230; Tue, 11 Oct 1994 15:45:39 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1757; Tue, 11 Oct 1994 14:42:39 +0100 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 09:36:26 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: A couple of questions X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199410081409.AA03239@nfs2.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Oct 8, 94 12:03:24 pm Content-Length: 820 Lines: 20 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.