From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat May 20 00:06:19 1995
Date:         Fri, 19 May 1995 18:13:45 EDT
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Quantifiers
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <etErP1t0sAD.A.8gE.kt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la dilyn cusku di'e
> This has some slightly odd consequences, though I'm not sure how to
> work them with the grammar.  But I believe
>
>         pa lu'a le xunre cukta .e le blabi cukta .e le blanu cukta
>                 cu cpana le jubme
>
> means
>         Exactly one of the red book, the white book, and the blue book
>                 is on the table
>
> Yes?

Preferably not joined with {.e} but with {joi} or {ce}.

To me, what you have means "one element of the red book, the white book,
and the blue book".

Not very meaningful because it is not clear what are the elements of a
book, perhaps a common page.  But if you had sets there instead of
books, I would understand it as an element of the intersection.  (You
can use {ku'a} for this as well.)

The point is that {joi} and {ce} make the overall sumti a mass or a set,
while {.e} doesn't, so an element of things joined with {.e} is still an
element of the things themselves, not of the overall thing.

Jorge