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 m0rEiP5-00007GC; Mon, 5 Dec 94 20:44 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7028; Mon, 05 Dec 94 20:45:04 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7025; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:45:03 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3250; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 19:41:45 +0100 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 13:40:25 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199411190348.AA01625@nfs2.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 18, 94 07:54:05 pm Content-Length: 796 Lines: 21 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.