Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tF4bV-0000ZTC; Mon, 13 Nov 95 21:31 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 80524F1E ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:31:40 +0100 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 14:34:12 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: TECH: man bites dog problem X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199511102132.QAA28576@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 9, 95 06:57:23 pm Content-Length: 890 Lines: 27 la .and. cusku di'e > 1. I guess {re lo mu broda} becomes {re boi mu broda}. No, that's ungrammatical. "re lo mu broda" is scoped in conjunction, like "lo mu broda" (note that there must really be only five broda). > 2. How does {re broda} vs {re lo broda} help to disambiguate > > A. re le mu nanmu cu batci ci le mu gerku > > ? It doesn't help, I think, unless {ci lo le mu gerku} is > okay. If it indeed doesn't help, then either a more general > solution is needed, or, at least, we still need a ruling on > whether A. is 3 dogs or 6 dogs. Three dogs. To get six dogs, use: re me le mu nanmu cu batci ci me le mu gerku with the new definition of "me". This is equivalent to: re da poi me le mu nanmu vau ci de poi me le mu gerku zo'u da batci de -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.