Message-Id: <199411190348.AA01625@nfs2.digex.net>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Date: Fri Nov 18 22:48:12 1994
Subject:      Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus
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