Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA01625 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 18 Nov 1994 22:48:09 -0500 Message-Id: <199411190348.AA01625@nfs2.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6722; Fri, 18 Nov 94 22:49:00 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9009; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 19:53:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 19:54:05 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 18 22:48:12 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu > BTW, I think that your argument that "lei" (and presumably "lai") want > "piro" as the outside quantifier because they are +specific is incorrect. > Outside quantifiers for masses (and sets) aren't true quantifiers, they are > partitioners (or sumpn like that). Does that mean that {lei broda} means {le pisu'o lei broda}? Otherwise, I can't see how it can be specific. Also, why not just {piro lei broda}, which would be the natural first choice? > > I think allowing {lo'e} and {le'e} to have quantifiers gives them > > a lot of usefulness. I really don't see much use for them as singular > > abstractions. > > Unfortunately, they were introduced into Loglan as such. Well, my use doesn't really invalidate its intended meaning, since it is already opaque anyway. It is only an extension, and since there is no other way to mark opaque references explicitly, I think it is a valid one. Jorge