From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed May 24 18:29:15 1995 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 19:04:27 +0100 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response To: Bob LeChevalier Message-ID: > You can always use the last rule (which may never expand > to include a selbri at all) to get such phrases as "re le ci do" (2 of > the 3 of you). How does this work? Are {suo do} and {ro do} okay as sumti? > > One problem is the > >meaning of {le fa le brode ku broda}, but that already exists: what > >does {le broda be fa le brode} mean? > There are many possible expressions that don't have a clear-cut meaning. > To exclude "be fa" we would have had to put "fa" in a different selma'o > from the rest of the FA members, and double all the other rules that > allow FA just to exclude this one. Who cares? > Or rather - if you insist, I'll come up with a semantics for it - I > would say that {le broda be fa le brode} means "le broda voi brode" - > the broda which also may be described as a brode. But I would never use > the former instead of the latter - more confusing and complex - except > perhaps for some poetical parallelism between broda and brode. I used this construction (with the meaning you attribute to it) in my first Lojban writing. > Anyone for "setesevexeseteve blanu" (especially funny since blanu is > a 1 place brivla) I've used multiple SEs (including vacuous ones, I think). --- And Message 19: