From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412051840.AA08814@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 13:40:25 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199411190348.AA01625@nfs2.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 18, 94 07:54:05 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 772 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 5 13:40:43 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab mi pu cusku di'e > > 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). 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. The same is true of "loi", of course, but the mass is -inmind +veridical rather than +inmind -veridical. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.