Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0s9cHU-0009acC; Thu, 11 May 95 20:44 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 0CE92FA1 ; Thu, 11 May 1995 19:44:10 +0100 Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 18:39:15 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: ci cribe X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 09 May 95 13:53:59 EDT.) Content-Length: 986 Lines: 25 Jorge: > And: > > > To get the second meaning, I would say: > > > le ci cribe cu batci rori > > This doesn't make much sense to me. It seems to me to mean > > "Each of the three bears bit each of itself" - daft. > Well, I tried to give it some meaning. I don't know what is > the meaning of quantifying a variable that is already quantified. > What do these mean: > ro da voi cribe zo'u da batci ro da > ro da voi cribe zo'u da batci su'o da > ro da voi cribe zo'u da batci re da > I would say they mean, respectively: > Each bear bit each bear. > Each bear bit at least one of the bears. > Each bear bit two of the bears. I think this is a good rule of interpretation (given that Lojban is too advanced in its design for any kind of significant revision). I don't think it falls out from the present rule system (& this is what I meant when I said it makes no sense), but I would support adding such a rule. ---- shaw haw me hay And