Date:  Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:28:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711232128.QAA04250@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@quetzal.com>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@quetzal.com>
Subject:      Re: How {lo} works
X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <199711201835.LAA18933@indra.com>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 700
X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov 23 16:28:26 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM wrote:
> If you reject this and say, "this cannot be the case", then you are
> forbidding certain procedures associated with {lo}, such as using
> different cats in the second test rather than the same cats.

Check out section 7 of chapter 6 for a good discussion of this.  {mi nelci
lo mlatu} is the same as {mi nelci su'o lo ro mlatu}, where {su'o} means
one or more, and {ro} means all.  That {ro} rules out your idea of having
the listener round up a bunch of cats at random to present -- you're very
specifically required to round up *all* the cats in the universe.  "All"
is convenient because it means the set doesn't change every time.

Chris