From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 07 22:49:46 1995 Received: from punt.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3287 ; Wed, 07 Jun 95 22:49:43 BST Received: from punt.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Wed, 07 Jun 95 19:27:57 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt.demon.co.uk id aa19633; 7 Jun 95 20:26 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9986; Wed, 07 Jun 95 15:22:33 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0272; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:42:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:33:35 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: lei re gutci X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506072026.aa19633@punt.demon.co.uk> Status: R >> (BTW, xorxes, this could be only 1 foot to north and west) > >Not at all. {lei re gutci} is a mass of two feet, and I count on a >cooperative audience to think of them aligned one after the other. It >is equivalent to {le gutci remei}, which is also a mass of two. > >I agree that {le gutci be li re} is more precise, but it is also more >awkward, so in general I think {lei re gutci} is best for the everyday >expression. That depends upon what the default outer quantifier is for "lei" these days - something that was I think part of the as-yet-unsettled dispute. If it is pisu'o (which I think was Cowan's position) then, you require your cooperative audience to think the two are aligned one after the other AND that you intend a different-than standard outer quantifier. lojbab