From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Tue Nov 15 07:42:14 1994
Message-Id: <199411151242.AA13460@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Tue Nov 15 07:42:14 1994
From: Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>
Subject:      Re: re loi smani
Status: RO

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