Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r8hAt-00005XC; Sat, 19 Nov 94 06:13 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7583; Sat, 19 Nov 94 06:13:34 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7582; Sat, 19 Nov 1994 06:13:30 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7466; Sat, 19 Nov 1994 05:10:14 +0100 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: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 903 Lines: 23 > 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