Message-Id: <m0r7NDb-00006eC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:38:23 MET
Reply-To:     Goran Topic <topic@MATH.HR>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Goran Topic <topic@MATH.HR>
Subject:      Re: re loi smani
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1069
Lines: 23

Now that I've come to think about it, re loi broda is quite nonsensical.

Condider this: I believe I'm right if I assume that {pimu loi djacu}
is 0.5=half of all the water in the universe of current discourse.
then {piro loi djacu}, all of the water, is the double of 0.5, which is
={pa loi djacu}. Now, if you say {re loi djacu}, that's doubled again,
so it would be twice {piro loi djacu}. You can't discuss twice as much
water as there is in the universe of discourse in a transparent sense
(assuming, again, I understood the opaque/transparentr distinction
correctly).

I guess, Robert, that you took that {loi djacu} means "some mass of water"
my itself, forgetting the implicit quantifiers {[pisu'o] loi [ro] djacu}.
When you put {re} in it, you LOSE the {pisu'o}: now you don't speak of
parts of the mass anymore, but of two instances of a (mass of all water),
which is unique!

co'o mi'e. goran.


--
Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get
e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi