From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199411141803.AA27425@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:03:58 -0500 (EST)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199411111334.AA25924@nfs2.digex.net> from "i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk" at Nov 11, 94 12:55:18 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:        378
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 14 13:04:14 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

la .i,n. cusku di'e

> Well, we need some way of saying "two typical men".  Does {lo'e re nanmu}
> work?

No, I don't think so: since "lo'e" belongs to the "lo"/"loi"/"lo'i" series,
inner quantifiers say how many members the set has.

I think you want "re nanmu cnano" or the like.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.