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 m0rEmGL-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 00:52 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1330; Tue, 06 Dec 94 00:52:19 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1328; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 00:52:18 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6889; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 23:49:01 +0100 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:36:03 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 660 Lines: 21 la djan cusku di'e > la xorxes. cusku di'e > > > Does that mean that {lei broda} means {le pisu'o lei broda}? > > > > Otherwise, I can't see how it can be specific. > > You are correct, and I was muddled here. I now think that "lei"/"lai" are > -specific, but they are a -specific portion of a +specific mass. Yes, like {su'o le broda} is a -specific selection from a +specific total, but the default should be {piro lei}. > The > same is true of "loi", of course, but the mass is -inmind +veridical > rather than +inmind -veridical. Why not make {lei}/{lai} +specific? Besides, I think they will be used like that anyway by analogy with {le}/{la}. Jorge