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 m0r66rX-00005bC; Sat, 12 Nov 94 03:02 EET
Message-Id: <m0r66rX-00005bC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 1538; Sat, 12 Nov 94 03:02:51 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1534; Sat, 12 Nov 1994 03:02:51 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7471; Sat, 12 Nov 1994 01:59:42 +0100
Date:         Fri, 11 Nov 1994 20:05:34 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 959
Lines: 19

> A note:  "re lo'e nanmu" doesn't mean "two typical men", it means "two
> instances of the abstraction called 'the typical man'" and is semantically
> unsound, since there is only one such objective abstraction.  (If it isn't
> objective, then "le'e" is wanted, and "re le'e nanmu" is fine.)

The sumti paper says that {su'o lo'e ro} is the default quantifier of {lo'e}.
If it doesn't make sense, I guess it should be fixed.

I prefer to think of {lo'e} as the opaque gadri, especially since it seems
that {xe'e} won't be accepted. And maybe {le'e} would be the opaque gadri
with in-mind restrictions. When Santa says that he needs a box, but not any
will do, he has a 'type' of box in mind, but not a particular box.

So we have {re lo'e remna kakne le nu zutsi le sfofa}, because I'm not
restricting it to any special type of remna, just any two. But {la santas
nitcu le'e tanxe}, because he needs a certain type of box, not any old box
whatsoever.

Jorge