Message-Id: <199511152104.QAA06504@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 15 Nov 1995 20:35:46 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: man bites dog problem
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

> > 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).

So is there a way to say it? {re me lo mu broda}, I suppose.

> > 2. How does {re broda} vs {re lo broda} help to disambiguate
> >    A.  re le mu nanmu cu batci ci le mu gerku
> > 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

Hmm. I see. Is {ci broda} equivalent to {ci me lo broda}?

I'm still not sure how to {lo}-lessly do:
   {mehi ro lo ci lo prenu cu klama} [under current system]
   "There is a trio of people not all of whom are goers."

My best guess is:

   mehi ro me ci prenu cu klama
   mehi ro me ci lo prenu cu klama

---
And