Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:19:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710140219.VAA27348@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: na`e X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 840 Lines: 19 cu'u la djef > As far as quantifying >selbri goes, what about talking about "nu bu'a", "su'u bu'a", or something >like that? I don't think it would work, because those expressions already have a meaning. Any convention that uses them for selbri quantification would be in conflict with the pre-existing meaning. >I don't like that rule with "cei" either. It all sounds really ad hoc. I >really think some selbri equivalent of "poi" would be preferable, or else >"poi" with an abstraction sumti of the "su'u bu'a", etc. variety. I don't think we can have the kind of selbri metaquantification that things like {su'o bu'a} are supposed to be without making important changes to the grammar. Of course there is nothing wrong with normal selbri quantification in the standard form: {su'o da poi selbri}. co'o mi'e xorxes