Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA05534 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 5 Dec 1994 19:47:50 -0500 Message-Id: <199412060047.AA05534@nfs2.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6176; Mon, 05 Dec 94 19:45:45 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9638; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:37:09 -0500 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 X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 5 19:47:58 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu 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