From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Tue May 23 01:38:27 1995
Date:         Tue, 23 May 1995 00:45:39 GMT
From: Iain Alexander <ia@STRYX.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Quantifiers
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <_qTjQUwXgSM.A.JwE.xt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

In message <199505220346.XAA02279@abel.math.harvard.edu> "Dylan P.
Thurston" writes:
> la .i,n. cusku di'e
>  > I'd prefer to say
>  >
>  >         le du'u tu'okau nanmu cu nenri le kumfa cu du li ci
>
> Interesting suggestion.  I'm a little uneasy about it, though.  {le
> du'u to'okau nanmu cu nenri le kumfa} is clearly not a number (for
> instance, it may appear as in the second tersumti of {djuno}[1],
> whereas a number can not).  So how much sense does it make to say it's
> equal to 3?
>
> [1] But unlike a {du'u} without a {kau}, it could not appear in, say,
> the first tersumti of {fatci}, suggesting that there may actually be
> two concepts represented by the same cmavo {du'u}.

Good point.  I think this is the distinction between name and value, in
which case

         la'e le du'u tu'okau nanmu cu nenri le kumfa cu du li ci

is what I meant.
--
Iain Alexander                    ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
                    I.Alexander@bra0125.wins.icl.co.uk